America was founded as a Christian Nation [Archive] - Debate Policy

Pale Rider

07-05-2007, 01:39 PM

Well if the founding of America WASN'T rooted in Christianity, then where did all this come from?

IN GOD WE TRUST
HISTORY OF THE MOTTO OF THE USA

Introduction.

In our times, the concept of freedom of speech joined with scientific rationalism has brought our forefathers’ allegiance to a higher power, usually titled as God, under fire. Repeated litigation demanding the eradication of the word God, and references to a higher power, from all government activities has caused early and cherished American traditions to be banned. The goal of the godless dissenters is to turn this democracy into a secular government that ignores its traditional faith roots.

It is little known that the removal of references to God would cause the rejection and removal of our national anthem, “The Star Spangled Banner.” The last stanza of Key’s poem, now the national anthem of the United States is:

“And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’”

And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.’

How this came to be:

Some world changing events happened to Francis (“Frank”) Scott Key in September of 1814 during a trip to Baltimore. Traveling under a white flag, Key met with both an enemy general and admiral, recovered a war prisoner, became a war prisoner, watched a historical bombardment, lost a night’s sleep, and wrote our national anthem. Along with all that, he created the best known, and most succinct statement of blind faith ever known.

The anthem he wrote was, of course, “The Star Spangled Banner.” In its fourth stanza, Key closed with the words, “And this is our motto - ‘In God is our Trust!’” That line was both his statement of faith and a prophecy. Shortened in 1864 to “In God We Trust,” to fit a newly designed two-cent piece, it quickly earned its popular place as America’s unofficial motto. In 1955, Congress ordered it placed on all United States’ currency.

This motto of the most powerful nation in world history now rides piggyback on the most coveted currency on earth. Every day millions of people of every nation and religion read our faith confession. It is known everywhere.

While the currency is coveted, the faith underlying its value is often neglected, and sometimes even scorned. Being such common tender, “In God We Trust” has become a jaded cliché to many who carry it in their pockets and purses. Its message is least understood by criminals of every shade and place who obtain it by lawless means.

The simple and implied blind faith of the motto deserves our review and reaffirmation. At the same time, it is inspiring to revisit the man and events that forever established Key’s place in American history.

On June 18, 1812, the upstart United States declared war on England, then one of the world’s most powerful nations. Being then involved in a war with France, England was unable to respond with immediate vigor. In efforts to blockade each other, both England and France had been interfering with American shipping. Neither respected American sovereignty, but the English were the more abusive. American crews were captured and forced to crew on British ships. Congress declared war on England in order to preserve “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights”.

In 1814, after neutralizing Napoleons navy England dedicated enough troops and ships to discipline its former colony. A large English force arrived in Chesapeake Bay on August nineteenth, and by the evening of the twenty-fourth, they had attacked, captured and torched the capital.

Their attack was sudden, unexpected and mostly unopposed. So rapid was their advance, that President Madison left the White House without his wife, Dolly, and hastily fled across the Potomac River. Later when Dolly had to run, she saved Start’s portrait of George Washington by breaking it from its frame, and taking it with her. Glow from the flames from the burning city, including both the White House and the capital, could be seen in Baltimore, forty miles away. Providential rains, coming at dawn on the twenty-fifth, dampened the fires and saved the city. The following day, more fires were started but once again thunderstorms saved America’s capital.

Their dirty deeds now finished, the English left town. Withdrawing to their ships, the British soldiers took along a prisoner, the elderly and revered physician, William Beanes. According to some reports, Beanes was arrested for making uncomplimentary remarks to a few over-sensitive invaders. History has not recorded what Dr. Beanes potent comments were which so offended the soldiers. Whatever he said or did, by those actions he was destined to be a key player in the historical epoch that would soon unfold.

The people of Baltimore began preparing for the attack they knew was coming. Baltimore’s protective Fort McHenry was readied for battle by its commander, Major George Armistead.

In the fort’s store, there was a giant forty-two foot flag, destined to be remembered forever. In 1813, with Hancockian flourish, Armistead asked for a flag so large, “the British would have no trouble seeing it from a distance.” Flag maker Mary Young Pickersgill was hired to design and make it.

The resulting banner had fifteen stars two feet across from point to point. Spaced in five rows of three, they proudly and brightly stood out on the flag’s royal blue field. The stripes were eight red and seven white, each two feet wide. The flag parts were cut from four hundred yards of wool bunting by Mary and her thirteen-year old daughter, Caroline. Finally sized at thirty by forty-two feet, the flag was much too large to be assembled in the bedroom where it was designed and cut. The local Claggett Brewery’s malt house floor was borrowed for laying out the parts and sewing them together. Completed in August 1813, the flag cost $405.90.

History’s great moments usually come out of mundane events, so it was no great historic call that brought Francis Scott Key into the forefront of this American historical drama. He was asked to go on a mission to free Dr. Beanes, and dutifully he went.

Key, a man of faith and an Episcopalian by persuasion, had practiced law in Washington since 1805. The well-known attorney had presented several cases before the Supreme Court. A veteran of the current war, he had served at the battle of Bladensburg, Kentucky.

Hearing of Dr. Beane’s capture, the locals feared for his life. Believing that the brutal British would string their favorite physician from a yardarm by his neck, they sought Key’s help. He accepted their call, and enlisted the aid of Colonel John Skinner, an experienced American agent for prisoner exchange.

Having gained President Madison’s approval, Key and Skinner borrowed a sloop in Baltimore. Under a white flag of truce, they sailed toward the British fleet to find its flagship, Tonnant. On the seventh of September, they found the Tonnant and were allowed to board by British Commanders Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Robert Ross.

After Cochrane and Ross heard Key’s petition for Beanes’ release, they refused to free him. Key and Skinner then presented letters from wounded English soldiers still being held as American prisoners. In the letters, Dr. Beanes and their American captors were praised for the fair treatment English captives received. With a change of heart, Ross and Cochrane agreed to free Beanes. However, release was delayed pending the progressing British attack on Fort McHenry.

Because they had seen and heard too much about English battle plans and preparations, Key, Skinner and Beanes were confined to their boat under guard. Placed behind the enemy fleet, some eight miles below Fort McHenry, they watched the twenty-five hour bombardment.

Fort McHenry’s guns were deadly at close range. American cannon sank twenty-two English vessels that tested Yankee aim. For the final assault, English ships lay outside the fort’s range. On the morning of September 13th, promptly at seven, their bombardment began. The fort responded by flying the great flag and holding fire.

During the next twenty-five hours, English ships fired over 1,500 shells at the fort, stopping the cannonading at dusk. Quiet prevailed until one o’clock the following morning. Shelling then began again with renewed intensity. Rain streamed through the dark sky to magnify the lights and colors flashing from British cannons, rockets, and bombs.

Ordinance of the era included erratic rockets fired from special small boats. Cannons lobbed two hundred pound fused bombshells. Throughout the night, rockets followed by red, wavering trails glared in the rain. Unreliable fuses caused many bombshells to explode in midair. It was a spectacular show.

The three American prisoners anxiously endured a sleepless night. Continual shelling was a sign the fort had not surrendered. Several hours before daybreak, the bombardment stopped. The foreboding quiet implied a fearful message. Imagining that the fort had fallen, Key, Skinner, and Beanes waited for daylight to look for the flag. Unknown to them, the British had abandoned their attack, and ordered a retreat, because of diminishing ammunition supplies.

As the dawn broke, Francis Scott Key looked to the fort for the one sign that would tell the battle’s outcome. It was there. The giant flag was still there. Fort McHenry stood defiant and undefeated. Inspired by relief and joy, Key took paper from his pocket and began writing the poem that would become “The Star Spangled Banner”. He closed It with his statement of faith, “this be our motto; ‘in God is our trust!’”

Key’s poem was published in the Baltimore Patriot’s September 20, 1814 issue. There it was suggested the poem could be sung to the tune of an English song, “Anacrean in Heaven”. Publicly performed to great acclaim in October of that year, its popularity was insured forever. Both the Army and the Navy adopted the song as their unofficial national anthem. Official acceptance of Key’s poem as America’s national anthem was completed by Congress on March 3, 1931.

The great motto and statement of faith, “In God We Trust” was a little slower gaining public attention. During the dark days of the civil War, both North and South hoped for God’s mercy and protection. Each side wanted to believe their cause was in God’s will. Trusting in God was important to the people in those times. Honoring God was thought to be the source and requirement for national strength and success.

The Union cause fared poorly during 1861. On the thirteenth of November of that year, a minister of the gospel from Pennsylvania wrote of his concerns to the government. In a letter to Salmon P. Chase, then Secretary of the Treasury, The Rev. Mr. M. R. Watkinson wrote, “One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins”.

Chase agreed. That same week, in a letter dated November twentieth, he wrote to Mint Director, James Pollack: “No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest...words possible this national recognition.”

By December, Pollack offered Chase designs for three new coins along with two suggested mottoes. These were “Our country; our God” and “God, our Trust”. Chase approved but offered suggestions to amend the statements.

He replied, “I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with ‘Our’, so as to read: ‘Our God and our country’. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read, ‘In God we trust’”.

On April 22, 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing “In God We Trust” to be struck on a new bronze two-cent piece. The following year, on the third of March, Congress passed an act permitting the motto to be used on any other coins having enough space for it. Finally, in 1955, Congress ordered it put on all United States’ currency.

In our times, “The Star Spangled Banner” is honored as the expression of our nation’s heritage and confidence in its destiny. Standing with hands over hearts, and often with tears in their eyes, Americans sing it often with reverence and joy.

The motto causes a different reaction. It is received in silence, contemplated in private, and most often ignored. Rarely read in public, it is only occasionally mentioned by those who are seldom out of its presence. But what does it mean? What does it mean to trust God? How can a group of people with diverse religious beliefs affirm as a nation that we trust God both individually and collectively? What did Key mean when he wrote it?

Are we using the motto on our currency as a magic talisman, agreeing with Salmon P. Chase, “No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense?” Does the motto express a personal faith that we believe is somehow collectively held by all Americans?

A recent Gallop poll showed that ninety-six percent of us believe in God or a Universal Spirit. No data is available revealing what percent actually do trust in God. Almost ninety percent say religion is important in their lives. In some way, this ninety percent do trust in God. Fearing ridicule, few make public faith expressions. Most Americans seem to have a quiet kind of limited trust from their personal and private faith. “In God we trust” remains a proper American national motto, even though trust is too often a last resort, and not an “around the clock” life style.

Even when the motto is generally accepted, it seems as if agreement on the definition of trust is not. Trust has almost as many definitions as there are people. That is because faith, the root of trust, is poorly understood and thought to be only a last resort, ill advised for modern reasoning people. Faith as radical, blind trust is rarely encouraged either in church or in school. Usually faith is seen as a creedal or an intellectual statement and not as a relationship with God. Few know that faith is total trust in God with a life lived in a “let go and let God” attitude.

Blind and radical trust in God requires a complete handing over of self to Him without regard or concern about how He will direct your life or what He will supply. It is based on trust that God loves you more than you love yourself, and is wiser than you ever will be. With His combination of power, love and wisdom, He will do more for us than we can do on our own.

A problem with this is that before we meet God, we cannot imagine He can or will direct life’s events in our favor. We think, before meeting God “face—to—face,” that we are on our own, and can only survive by our wits and self-concern.

Once we realize God is always watching over us, we can seriously consider giving Him our life to rule. Seeing His providence at work, now we can give God the credit and glory for all our good fortunes. The more God is trusted, the more freely He works His daily providence (miracles) in the life of a believer. By giving God the credit for leading us, for ordering our footsteps and giving good gifts, we stop giving credit to false gods. Popular false gods of our times are Luck, Fate, Talent, Money, Intellect, Knowledge, Appearance, and Power.

To those who have not applied the national motto, trusting God in faith seems to be foolishness, superstition, and weakness. Faith, for those who have made the step of blind trust, is the best life choice - a life lived in God’s hands. This new way of living changes cursings into blessings that are energized by continual thanksgiving.

In God we trust!

http://www.christian-community.org/library/ingodwetrust.html

Hagbard Celine

07-05-2007, 01:41 PM

Doesn't change the fact that the US government is secular and always has been.

Pale Rider

07-05-2007, 01:47 PM

In God We Trust: The Motto

One of the first found references of the motto “In God We Trust” is heard in the U.S. National Anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. The son was written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 and later adopted as the national anthem. In the last stanza Key writes a variation of the phrase: “...And this be our motto: In God is our trust. And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” The words were shortened to In God We Trust and first applied to U.S. coins in 1864.

In God We Trust: The History

The U. S. Department of Treasury states “the motto, IN GOD WE TRUST, was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania. As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.”
Pollock suggested "Our Trust Is In God," "Our God And Our Country," "God And Our Country," and "God Our Trust." Chase picked "In God We Trust" to be used on some of the government's coins. The first time "In God We Trust" appeared on our coins was in 1864 on the new two cent coin, and by 1909 it was included on most the other coins. During the height of the cold war, on July 11, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto.

In God We Trust: The Foundation

American history demonstrates repeatedly that the nation was founded on Christian principles and its founding fathers wished to acknowledge that fact all over Washington D.C. buildings, in official documents, and historical speeches. Less than a hundred years after its Declaration of Independence, In God We Trust was proclaimed on its coins. America is a free nation, and freedom of religion is still guaranteed in the Constitution’s First Amendment.

President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time" and asked ‘Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are of God?’"

The Bible says:
"It is better to trust the LORD than to put confidence in man" (Psalm 118:8).

"He has put a new song in my mouth, praise unto our God; many shall see it, and fear and will trust in the LORD" (Psalm 40:3, NKJV).

"It is good for me to draw near to God: I have put my trust in the Lord GOD, that I may declare all thy works" (Psalm 73:28 NKJV).

"The fear of man brings a snare: but whoever puts his trust in the LORD shall be safe" (Proverbs 29:25 NKJV).

http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trust.htm

glockmail

07-05-2007, 01:47 PM

And fuck your straw man challenges.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=77699&postcount=29

Straw man?

Pale Rider

07-05-2007, 01:49 PM

Doesn't change the fact that the US government is secular and always has been.

Right.... that's why "IN GOD WE TRUST" is splattered all over everything from our government buildings to official documents to money. That's real secular.

-Cp

07-05-2007, 01:50 PM

Oh, fuck you.

I find your tone appalling.....and uncalled for...

LOki

07-05-2007, 02:22 PM

Well if the founding of America WASN'T rooted in Christianity, then where did all this come from?

IN GOD WE TRUST
HISTORY OF THE MOTTO OF THE USA

Introduction.

[werdz]

In God we trust!

http://www.christian-community.org/library/ingodwetrust.htmlNot a single mention of Jesus, or Christ. I think Hagbard is right about that Deist business, moreover those who demand this Christian Nation business never manage to overcome the ratification of the Bill of Rights which clearly sets the notion that the government of this nation is not contingent upon, or subject to, any ecclesiastic doctrine what-so-ever.

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

Hagbard Celine

07-05-2007, 02:33 PM

I find your tone appalling.....and uncalled for...

Yeah, because you're a regular angel in this department :rolleyes:

Abbey Marie

07-05-2007, 02:37 PM

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.

Wow. Someone has some serious issues.

-Cp

07-05-2007, 02:51 PM

Yeah, because you're a regular angel in this department :rolleyes:

Thanks for the acknowledgement...

glockmail

07-05-2007, 03:10 PM

I find your tone appalling.....and uncalled for... when he first came on board he was fairly polite. As it was pointed out his method of thinking is wrong and absurd he has gotten progressively vulgar.

Such is with progressives, I guess. :laugh2:

OCA

07-05-2007, 03:11 PM

Abbey Marie

07-05-2007, 03:11 PM

when he first came on board he was fairly polite. As it was pointed out his method of thinking is wrong and absurd he has gotten progressively vulgar.

Such is with progressives, I guess. :laugh2:

IIRC, GW said he used to be conservative. That would explain his initial manners. :D

OCA

07-05-2007, 03:15 PM

Oh, fuck you.

Hey GW, you wanna jump in the mud with me boy? Many here are goodhearted souls and will stay above this kind of shit but not me, i'm a dirtbag........i'll shove the mud down your throat and cut off your windpipe till you slowly suffocate. Maybe its best for lightweights like you to rethink starting off a debate by telling people to fuck off.

Just a friendly warning......friend.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 03:19 PM

glockmail

07-05-2007, 03:21 PM

Hey GW, you wanna jump in the mud with me boy? Many here are goodhearted souls and will stay above this kind of shit but not me, i'm a dirtbag........i'll shove the mud down your throat and cut off your windpipe till you slowly suffocate. Maybe its best for lightweights like you to rethink starting off a debate by telling people to fuck off.

Just a friendly warning......friend.

Nice to see you're back in your best form, OCA. These last two posts were gawddam priceless. :salute:

Pale Rider

07-05-2007, 03:22 PM

Not a single mention of Jesus, or Christ. I think Hagbard is right about that Deist business, moreover those who demand this Christian Nation business never manage to overcome the ratification of the Bill of Rights which clearly sets the notion that the government of this nation is not contingent upon, or subject to, any ecclesiastic doctrine what-so-ever.

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

Jesus Christ and God, one and the same.

This isn't really an argument that appeals to me, but, if I were to continue, I'm fairly well convinced it would be easier to defend the position that America's founding is more deeply rooted in Christianity than anything else. Denying that is just, well, dense.

OCA

07-05-2007, 03:30 PM

:thewave:

Its very simple Glock, they wanted religious freedom, they did not want to be forced to join the church of England, they wanted the choice to be Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists etc. etc.......however they did not include Hasidic Jews, Shiite Muslims, cow worshiping dotheads, Tibetan monks etc. etc., and by most accounts the majority of signators to the Declaration Of Independence and drafters of the Constitution were in fact hardcore Christians and stamped this fervor all over the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

You see though we've become a nation that would rather lie in order to ride the middle of the fence rather than tell the truth about this country's roots and maybe remove the wool from a few people's eyes.

The way I look at it maybe we should move ever so slightly towards merging religion and government, what could it hurt? Can't do any worse than secularism.

OCA

07-05-2007, 03:31 PM

Nice to see you're back in your best form, OCA. These last two posts were gawddam priceless. :salute:

I'm in a testy mood today friend, high humidity does that to me.

Pale Rider

07-05-2007, 04:03 PM

I'm in a testy mood today friend, high humidity does that to me.

Git yer ass out west here then. What the fuck is a cowboy like you doin' fartin' around back east there with all the sons a bitchin' city slickers and flat landers anyway?

Abbey Marie

07-05-2007, 04:03 PM

Git yer ass out west here then. What the fuck is a cowboy like you doin' fartin' around back east there with all the sons a bitchin' city slickers and flat landers anyway?

Hmmph!

LOki

07-05-2007, 04:17 PM

Jesus Christ and God, one and the same.Setting the aside the self-contradictory notion of the Trinity, this is only true for Christians. Not for Jews, not for Muslims, and not neccessarily for Deists. If this were a nation truly founded upon Christ, then Jesus would be prominent in the founding documents--as it turns out, such notions were contemplated and then pointedly rejected to specificly avoid the assertion that this is a Christian nation.

This isn't really an argument that appeals to me, but, if I were to continue, I'm fairly well convinced it would be easier to defend the position that America's founding is more deeply rooted in Christianity than anything else.You wouldn't defend it so well with evidence. I wouldn't start with the Common Law arguement--Jefferson took care of that one. Nor would I go with Patrick Henry, as his attempts to make this a Christian nation were roundly blocked. The best you will come up with is certain Founders justifying their actions as being something akin to "the Christian thing to do," but you'll not find a ecclesiastially based foundation for the Government of this country--rather, since our Founders just finished fighting a country run by a government whose legitimacy was contingent upon Christianity, you'll discover that our Founders were of a majority opinion to not follow in those neccessarily oppressive footsteps.

Denying that is just, well, dense.Those who demand that this country was founded upon Christianity assert nothing but a back-door attempt to establish their Christianity as the national religion of the US Governement and the USA--those who insist upon such demands can't hide their intent.

Hagbard Celine

07-05-2007, 04:31 PM

Most of the institutions and laws of this country are rooted in biblical tradition, libs know this but why they deny it is a mystery.

Only complete fools continue to reject the idea that America was founded upon Christian values by hardcore Christians. Don't remember any stories of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. etc. coming over on the Mayflower.

The writer of the US Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, was as far from a "hardcore Christian" as they come. He was a scientist to the core and his religious views most closely resembled those of Deism. By the way, he wasn't the only one--nor was he the exception to the rule. The founders charged him with writing the freakin' Constitution! Here's a few quotes and a little bit of info for you to chew on, starting with this one:
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?") That's straight from T.J.'s pen. Here's some more:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

*Edit* I like this one too:
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Who's the fool sandwich man?

LOki

07-05-2007, 04:54 PM

Its very simple Glock, they wanted religious freedom, they did not want to be forced to join the church of England, they wanted the choice to be Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists etc. etc.......however they did not include Hasidic Jews, Shiite Muslims, cow worshiping dotheads, Tibetan monks etc. etc., ...They did not exclude them.

...and by most accounts the majority of signators to the Declaration Of Independence and drafters of the Constitution were in fact hardcore Christians and stamped this fervor all over the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Correction: ...by most fundamentalist Christian accounts that cannot be substatiated by evidence,...

You see though we've become a nation that would rather lie in order to ride the middle of the fence rather than tell the truth about this country's roots and maybe remove the wool from a few people's eyes.Actually, we've become a nation that has turned it's back on rationality in favor of notions that appeal to emotions, such as superstitions, mythology, and psuedo-science.

The way I look at it maybe we should move ever so slightly towards merging religion and government, what could it hurt? Can't do any worse than secularism. Divine right of kings ring a bell? How about the Inquisitions? Cromwell? Does the Taliban ring a fucking bell for you?

OCA

07-05-2007, 05:00 PM

The writer of the US Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, was as far from a "hardcore Christian" as they come. He was a scientist to the core and his religious views most closely resembled those of Deism. By the way, he wasn't the only one--nor was he the exception to the rule. The founders charged him with writing the freakin' Constitution! Here's a few quotes and a little bit of info for you to chew on, starting with this one: That's straight from T.J.'s pen. Here's some more:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

*Edit* I like this one too:

Who's the fool sandwich man?

Funny they always go to Jefferson like nobody else had a freakin thing to say about the document, yeah there were a couple other deists out of about 500 or so people who were in the mix(not just signers) so yeah its logical to think the Deists outweighed everyone else, right? Why don't you read it, actually read it for once in your life and you will find you come to the same conclusion as me.

Can you explain to me why our money has "in god we trust" on it and there is always a preacher, reverend etc. etc. of the Christian faith who leads prayer before Congressional sessions commence and not a Rabbi, Shaman or some other freakazoid leading it? Answer:we are a Christian nation. Stop the denial.

OCA

07-05-2007, 05:02 PM

And is this the same Jefferson who boned his SLAVE? Note the word SLAVE is in capital letters......good man, Deism, very honourable.

OCA

07-05-2007, 05:08 PM

They did not exclude them.

Correction: ...by most fundamentalist Christian accounts that cannot be substatiated by evidence,...

For the love of Christ! Look at the people who first came here up through to the time of the signing of the DOI, you need physical evidence? Fuck they they burned people at the stake because they though they were witches or possessed, don't get much more hardcore than that.

[/QUOTE]Divine right of kings ring a bell? How about the Inquisitions? Cromwell? Does the Taliban ring a fucking bell for you?[/QUOTE]

Uhhhhh, can you go just a hair more overboard to the extreme?

Hagbard Celine

07-05-2007, 05:14 PM

Funny they always go to Jefferson like nobody else had a freakin thing to say about the document, yeah there were a couple other deists out of about 500 or so people who were in the mix(not just signers) so yeah its logical to think the Deists outweighed everyone else, right? Why don't you read it, actually read it for once in your life and you will find you come to the same conclusion as me.

Can you explain to me why our money has "in god we trust" on it and there is always a preacher, reverend etc. etc. of the Christian faith who leads prayer before Congressional sessions commence and not a Rabbi, Shaman or some other freakazoid leading it? Answer:we are a Christian nation. Stop the denial.

"In God We Trust" was placed on our money because of increased religious fervor during the civil war. During the Revolution--the time of the founders--the mottos and phrases printed on US currency were things that encouraged patience with and faithfulness in the struggle for independence. The phrase "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto until 1973 and replaced the original, (better in my opinion) motto, which was E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one.)

As for the Congressional prayer, it was not unanimously agreed that this was the best way to open Congress, but was allowed because they valued freedom of religion. http://www.buchanan.org/h-116.html

Your view is myopic and you have no understanding of the founders or their intentions or a realistic grasp of history for that matter. That much is obvious.

-Cp

07-05-2007, 05:23 PM

Nope... none of our founders were Christians... Jeesh...

Try George Washington on for size:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

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 favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service 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 sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

avatar4321

07-05-2007, 05:33 PM

The ClayTaurus

07-05-2007, 05:47 PM

Nope... none of our founders were Christians... Jeesh...

Try George Washington on for size:Please show where someone in this thread claimed none of our founders were Christians.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 06:02 PM

So I take it no one's read the book? :poke:

LOki

07-05-2007, 06:12 PM

Nope... none of our founders were Christians... Jeesh... Strawman.

Try George Washington on for size:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

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 favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service 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 sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: WashingtonYes, lets try <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html">Washington</a> on for size. In all of the above, NOT ONE MENTION OF CHRIST. Intersting omission for a Christian, certainly a serious ommission for a citation alleged to confirm Washington's Christianity--but not so interesting or serious if Washington was a Deist.<blockquote>"Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
--Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr.</blockquote>Boller's not the only one:<blockquote>"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27</blockquote>And what did Washington think of religion and government?<blockquote>"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."
--George Washington; letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom</blockquote>How about these apples?<blockquote>"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274</blockquote>What else have you got?

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:15 PM

"In God We Trust" was placed on our money because of increased religious fervor during the civil war. During the Revolution--the time of the founders--the mottos and phrases printed on US currency were things that encouraged patience with and faithfulness in the struggle for independence. The phrase "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto until 1973 and replaced the original, (better in my opinion) motto, which was E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one.)

As for the Congressional prayer, it was not unanimously agreed that this was the best way to open Congress, but was allowed because they valued freedom of religion. http://www.buchanan.org/h-116.html

Your view is myopic and you have no understanding of the founders or their intentions or a realistic grasp of history for that matter. That much is obvious.

I argue that you are attempting to rewrite history to fit your sick secular views.

The fact is America was founded by Christians and that are laws and institutions are based on biblical values, thats not even argueable.

At this point i'm 100% positive that you've never read the constitution and bill of rights and that you know nothing or next to nothing about any of the founders next to Jefferson the slave fucker.

Lets roll back some of the seperation of church and state and see what happens, can't fuck it up anymore than what secularism has.

Can libs be anymore less understanding of what made America great before the 20th century or the foundations of America's roots?

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:18 PM

Please show where someone in this thread claimed none of our founders were Christians.

Nobody made that claim but the claim was made that the constitution and bill of rights are not firmly rooted in Christianity, unargueably they are, any claim to the contrary is simply assinine and laugheable.

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:23 PM

Strawman.

Yes, lets try <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html">Washington</a> on for size. In all of the above, NOT ONE MENTION OF CHRIST. Intersting omission for a Christian, certainly a serious ommission for a citation alleged to confirm Washington's Christianity--but not so interesting or serious if Washington was a Deist.<blockquote>"Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
--Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr.</blockquote>Boller's not the only one:<blockquote>"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27</blockquote>And what did Washington think of religion and government?<blockquote>"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution."
--George Washington; letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom</blockquote>How about these apples?<blockquote>"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274</blockquote>What else have you got?

Then I assume that you are arguing that the general societal shithole that America finds itself in currently can be traced back to George since we all know that the root cause of the shithole is the removal of the bible and religious teachings, well hell any teachings that deal with moral absolutes, right vs wrong, from the American classroom.

I don't think George and Thomas knew what a slippery slope they were creating with this church/state seperation bullshit.

Missileman

07-05-2007, 07:26 PM

Nobody made that claim but the claim was made that the constitution and bill of rights are not firmly rooted in Christianity, unargueably they are, any claim to the contrary is simply assinine and laugheable.

Are you really trying to say that freedom of religion is a Christian concept? That is truly assinine and laughable. If you have any doubts, I refer you to Commandment #1.

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:28 PM

Are you really trying to say that freedom of religion is a Christian concept? That is truly assinine and laughable. If you have any doubts, I refer you to Commandment #1.

Where did I say it was? I'm simply saying that America should fully embrace its Christian origins and revisit that which made it great.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:29 PM

......

Lets roll back some of the seperation of church and state and see what happens, .....

Now there's a bastardized concept if there ever was. Where is that written in the founding documents? Oh, yeah- it ain't.

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:31 PM

Now there's a bastardized concept if there ever was. Where is that written in the founding documents? Oh, yeah- it ain't.

No shit, but hey don't go telling libs that. I mean secularism kicked ass in the 20th century!

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:33 PM

No shit, but hey don't go telling libs that. I mean secularism kicked ass in the 20th century! well a lot of it had to do with FDR that socialist- commie.

Missileman

07-05-2007, 07:41 PM

Where did I say it was? I'm simply saying that America should fully embrace its Christian origins and revisit that which made it great.

You said that the constitution and bill of rights are firmly rooted in Christianity. The arguably most important freedom guaranteed by those documents is contrary to Christianity. I'd say you are exaggerating Christianity's role in the formation of our government.

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:42 PM

well a lot of it had to do with FDR that socialist- commie.

Yes, the same FDR, the hero to old school Demos, the same FDR who locked up all Japs during WWII and surveilled every American of German descent, but thats ok. Bush enacts a domestic terrorist communication surveillance program and he's the biggest violator of frredom since Joe Stalin.

Libs.....go figure.

I wonder if FDR got a permit before he locked up all the Japs?

OCA

07-05-2007, 07:44 PM

You said that the constitution and bill of rights are firmly rooted in Christianity. The arguably most important freedom guaranteed by those documents is contrary to Christianity. I'd say you are exaggerating Christianity's role in the formation of our government.

Freedom of religion? Seperation of church/state? I don't think the founders envisioned the absolute ridiculous links to which it would be taken. I'd bet if they were alive today they'd be for rolling that back.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:46 PM

.... The arguably most important freedom guaranteed by those documents is contrary to Christianity. .... Gee I can't wait to hear your theory on this. Please expound on this Oh Center of All Secular Knowledge.

glockmail

07-05-2007, 07:48 PM

Yes, the same FDR, the hero to old school Demos, the same FDR who locked up all Japs during WWII and surveilled every American of German descent, but thats ok. Bush enacts a domestic terrorist communication surveillance program and he's the biggest violator of frredom since Joe Stalin.

Libs.....go figure.

I wonder if FDR got a permit before he locked up all the Japs?

Damn I knew about that but just relized it now, that was probably why my Dad's old man was such as miserable bastard. Plus why he burned all his family records.

Psychoblues

07-06-2007, 01:45 AM

Naw. I think YOU are the one trying to re write history or you would have something other than your ignorant and hypocritical opinion to back up your statements.

I argue that you are attempting to rewrite history to fit your sick secular views.

The fact is America was founded by Christians and that are laws and institutions are based on biblical values, thats not even argueable.

At this point i'm 100% positive that you've never read the constitution and bill of rights and that you know nothing or next to nothing about any of the founders next to Jefferson the slave fucker.

Lets roll back some of the seperation of church and state and see what happens, can't fuck it up anymore than what secularism has.

Can libs be anymore less understanding of what made America great before the 20th century or the foundations of America's roots?

Get it on, cowgirl. Let's see your reasoned and documented research to these reasoned and documented arguments in this debate. OK, I'm, We're waiting. Don't start your namecalling bullshit. We are all aware that you are an expert at that cowardly internet crap. How do you like them balls against your chin?

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 03:51 AM

Hmmph!

aaaahh.... eer.... even thought there are a few good people back there. ... :o

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 03:53 AM

Setting the aside the self-contradictory notion of the Trinity, this is only true for Christians. Not for Jews, not for Muslims, and not neccessarily for Deists. If this were a nation truly founded upon Christ, then Jesus would be prominent in the founding documents--as it turns out, such notions were contemplated and then pointedly rejected to specificly avoid the assertion that this is a Christian nation.

You wouldn't defend it so well with evidence. I wouldn't start with the Common Law arguement--Jefferson took care of that one. Nor would I go with Patrick Henry, as his attempts to make this a Christian nation were roundly blocked. The best you will come up with is certain Founders justifying their actions as being something akin to "the Christian thing to do," but you'll not find a ecclesiastially based foundation for the Government of this country--rather, since our Founders just finished fighting a country run by a government whose legitimacy was contingent upon Christianity, you'll discover that our Founders were of a majority opinion to not follow in those neccessarily oppressive footsteps.

Those who demand that this country was founded upon Christianity assert nothing but a back-door attempt to establish their Christianity as the national religion of the US Governement and the USA--those who insist upon such demands can't hide their intent.

Well you've certainly made known plenty of your opinion, but unlike me, you haven't proven any of what you say.

Psychoblues

07-06-2007, 04:00 AM

What part did you not like, pr?

Well you've certainly made known plenty of your opinion, but unlike me, you haven't proven any of what you say.

And just where have YOU proven anything other than your ignorance?

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 04:11 AM

The walls cry out: U.S. founded on Christianity

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

Posted: March 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Thomas Jefferson, author of the "wall of separation" that is revered as gospel by secularists and civil libertarians who want to purge Christianity from the public square, was firmly in favor of prohibiting public religious expression.

Right?

Hardly. But that's the message many in the so-called mainstream are preaching today.

I wonder how many Americans are familiar with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? Authored by Thomas Jefferson, it appears on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial.

Here's an excerpt: "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens … are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. …"

Mr. Jefferson clearly believed that America was a gift from God and that it was God Himself who granted us the ability to reason and properly live our lives.

While it was Mr. Jefferson who drafted the measure, James Madison piloted it through the Virginia Legislature in 1786. History shows that each of these men deemed the legislation to be among their most satisfying triumphs, with Mr. Jefferson even noting on his tombstone that he was the author not only of the Declaration of Independence but also of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

I have been reading Newt Gingrich's latest book, "Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future." I believe every Christian in America should get a copy of this book to fully understand the rich Judeo-Christian influence on the burgeoning nation.

Mr. Gingrich takes readers on a journey through Washington, D.C., to observe a variety of monuments and relics, beginning with the National Archives. There, we see the undying words of the Declaration of Independence: we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Our nation's capital is full of these examples: from the striking statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments looking over the rotunda of the Library of Congress, to the depiction of the Commandments in the floor of the National Archives, to the Adams Prayer Mantel in the White House ("I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. …").

Last week, David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, spoke at Liberty University. He debunked the modern movement to cast our founders as "a bunch of atheist, agnostic deists," calling it completely invalid. He detailed the history and writings of many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and their obvious allegiance to Christianity. These men include:

Dr. John Witherspoon, who wrote, "I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. ..."

Dr. Benjamin Rush, an innovator of mass-produced Bible printing, initiator of the Sunday school movement in America and founder of the first Bible society in our nation.

John Dickinson, also a signer of the U.S. Constitution, who wrote in his will: "Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."

John Hancock, first governor of Massachusetts, who issued at least 24 calls for public fasting and prayer and urged people to pray and fast about their fellow citizens becoming Christians.
This is not fallacy; it is our history. But it is a history that is being routinely rewritten, ignored and disrespected.

I believe it is imperative that Christians go back to the basics to learn about the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation. Purchase books like Mr. Gingrich's "Rediscovering God in America," regularly visit the WallBuilders website to become knowledgeable and conversant on our nation's glorious history.

And to my pastor friends, I say that we must ensure that our congregations understand that America was founded on Christian principles, and we must be proactive in defending them.

Let us work together to safeguard the chronicle of our nation's founding from those who are shamefully and falsely preaching that we are a godless nation.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54738

Psychoblues

07-06-2007, 04:17 AM

Don't convolute the question with your inane remarks and quotes, pr.

The walls cry out: U.S. founded on Christianity

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

Posted: March 17, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Thomas Jefferson, author of the "wall of separation" that is revered as gospel by secularists and civil libertarians who want to purge Christianity from the public square, was firmly in favor of prohibiting public religious expression.

Right?

Hardly. But that's the message many in the so-called mainstream are preaching today.

I wonder how many Americans are familiar with the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? Authored by Thomas Jefferson, it appears on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial.

Here's an excerpt: "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens … are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion. …"

Mr. Jefferson clearly believed that America was a gift from God and that it was God Himself who granted us the ability to reason and properly live our lives.

While it was Mr. Jefferson who drafted the measure, James Madison piloted it through the Virginia Legislature in 1786. History shows that each of these men deemed the legislation to be among their most satisfying triumphs, with Mr. Jefferson even noting on his tombstone that he was the author not only of the Declaration of Independence but also of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

I have been reading Newt Gingrich's latest book, "Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future." I believe every Christian in America should get a copy of this book to fully understand the rich Judeo-Christian influence on the burgeoning nation.

Mr. Gingrich takes readers on a journey through Washington, D.C., to observe a variety of monuments and relics, beginning with the National Archives. There, we see the undying words of the Declaration of Independence: we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Our nation's capital is full of these examples: from the striking statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments looking over the rotunda of the Library of Congress, to the depiction of the Commandments in the floor of the National Archives, to the Adams Prayer Mantel in the White House ("I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. …").

Last week, David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, spoke at Liberty University. He debunked the modern movement to cast our founders as "a bunch of atheist, agnostic deists," calling it completely invalid. He detailed the history and writings of many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and their obvious allegiance to Christianity. These men include:

Dr. John Witherspoon, who wrote, "I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for there is no salvation in any other [Acts 4:12]. ..."

Dr. Benjamin Rush, an innovator of mass-produced Bible printing, initiator of the Sunday school movement in America and founder of the first Bible society in our nation.

John Dickinson, also a signer of the U.S. Constitution, who wrote in his will: "Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."

John Hancock, first governor of Massachusetts, who issued at least 24 calls for public fasting and prayer and urged people to pray and fast about their fellow citizens becoming Christians.
This is not fallacy; it is our history. But it is a history that is being routinely rewritten, ignored and disrespected.

I believe it is imperative that Christians go back to the basics to learn about the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation. Purchase books like Mr. Gingrich's "Rediscovering God in America," regularly visit the WallBuilders website to become knowledgeable and conversant on our nation's glorious history.

And to my pastor friends, I say that we must ensure that our congregations understand that America was founded on Christian principles, and we must be proactive in defending them.

Let us work together to safeguard the chronicle of our nation's founding from those who are shamefully and falsely preaching that we are a godless nation.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54738

You indicate an opinion and provided no proof. Give us the proof and only then will we understand.

LOki

07-06-2007, 05:20 AM

Then I assume that you are arguing that the general societal shithole that America finds itself in currently can be traced back to George since we all know that the root cause of the shithole is the removal of the bible and religious teachings, well hell any teachings that deal with moral absolutes, right vs wrong, from the American classroom.Actually, we've become a nation that has turned it's back on rationality in favor of notions that appeal to emotions, such as superstitions, mythology, and psuedo-science--that is the root cause of "general societal shithole that America finds itself in currently." And if you're looking for moral absolutes, the Bible is nowhere to start.

I don't think George and Thomas knew what a slippery slope they were creating with this church/state seperation bullshit.Divine right of kings ring a bell? How about the Inquisitions? Oliver Cromwell? They did for those who established the separation of church and state.

I'm simply saying that America should fully embrace its Christian origins and revisit that which made it great.America was founded on rational principles, not your religion.<blockquote>James Madison:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."</blockquote>We still don't need them, what we need to do is return to disabusing ourselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, and we'll do just fine.

No shit, but hey don't go telling libs that. I mean secularism kicked ass in the 20th century!It has beaten the living fuck out of theocracy in the 20th century and every century preceded by it.

Well you've certainly made known plenty of your opinion, but unlike me, you haven't proven any of what you say.Ok Pale, how about this:<blockquote>John Adams:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</blockquote>Now let's have some evidence to support your notions, ok?

BTW: Please don't hope that a WorldNet article written by Rev. Jerry Falwell is credible support for any position.

glockmail

07-06-2007, 05:26 AM

.......America was founded on rational principles, not your religion.<blockquote>James Madison:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."</blockquote> ..... He was speaking of the british system that claimed power given to the king by God.

Psychoblues

07-06-2007, 05:30 AM

We've all got shitholes. I call mine oca. Where'd you get that shitty mouth?

LOki

07-06-2007, 05:50 AM

He was speaking of the british system that claimed power given to the king by God.So you say. You can try to make up what he meant to say, Glockmail, but I'll just stand upon with what he actually said. Thanks. I say he was speaking of the influence ecclesiastical establishments on society--you may demand that his comments are limited to "British society," but you'll have to prove the validity of such a demand; I'll stick with "society." He also concluded that a just government does not need these ecclesiastical establishments--you may demand that his comments are limited to "British government," but you'll have to prove the validity of such a demand; I'll stick with "government."

glockmail

07-06-2007, 05:56 AM

So you say. You can try to make up what he meant to say, Glockmail, but I'll just stand upon with what he actually said. Thanks. I say he was speaking of the influence ecclesiastical establishments on society--you may demand that his comments are limited to "British society," but you'll have to prove the validity of such a demand; I'll stick with "society." He also concluded that a just government does not need these ecclesiastical establishments--you may demand that his comments are limited to "British government," but you'll have to prove the validity of such a demand; I'll stick with "government."

I'll take his comments in context and limited to what he was actually talking about. Feel free to humor yourself otherwise.

LOki

07-06-2007, 07:42 AM

I'll take his comments in context and limited to what he was actually talking about. Feel free to humor yourself otherwise.I didn't think you'd back up your argument.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 07:51 AM

I didn't think you'd back up your argument.

I think in this case, GM may have a point. Most of the Founders had moved from 'Divine Right' or they couldn't have argued the Enlightenment principles:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/classics/wziobro/ClassicalAmerica/ageorfp.htm

LOki

07-06-2007, 09:12 AM

I think in this case, GM may have a point. Most of the Founders had moved from 'Divine Right' or they couldn't have argued the Enlightenment principles:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/classics/wziobro/ClassicalAmerica/ageorfp.htmI'm not denying that James Madison found "Divine Right" to be a repugnant characteristic of an ecclesiastical establishment in government; I am questioning that "Divine Right" is the ONLY characteristic of an ecclesiastical establishment in government Madison found repugnant--there's nothing at all in his statement that demands such a limitation. There's nothing in the Jesuit paper you've supplied as a reference to assert such limitation either. There's nothing that refutes Madison's assertion that a just government does not need an ecclesiastical establishment.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 09:18 AM

I'm not denying that James Madison found "Divine Right" to be a repugnant characteristic of an ecclesiastical establishment in government; I am questioning that "Divine Right" is the ONLY characteristic of an ecclesiastical establishment in government Madison found repugnant--there's nothing at all in his statement that demands such a limitation.

Perhaps. It's pretty hard to pigeonhole Madison on religion:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html

...

Scholars, nevertheless, have tried to construct from this unyielding evidence a religious identity for Madison. He is such a commanding figure in the founding period's controversies over religion's relation to government that a knowledge of his personal religious convictions is sought as a key to his public posture on church-state issues. The very paucity of evidence has permitted a latitude of interpretation in which writers have created Madison in the image of their own religious convictions. To Christian scholars Madison is a paragon of piety; to those of a more secular bent he is a deist. His major 19th century biographer, William C. Rives, a pillar of the church in Virginia, argued that on Christianity's "doctrinal points" Madison was a model of "orthodoxy and penetration." Madison's major 20th century biographer, Irving Brant, pronounced him a deist. Reacting to this ascription, a Presbyterian minister-scholar, James Smylie, asserted in 1966 that Madison was nothing less than "a lay theologian." Another 20th century biographer, Ralph Ketcham, seems, initially, to have subscribed to Rives's view, asserting in 1960 that Madison was a man of "humble faith," who had a "deep personal attachment to some general aspects of Christian belief." By 1971, however, Ketcham seems to have turned to Brant's view, asserting that even in his college days Madison was no "more than conventionally religious" and that he later became a deist. Two recent scholars, William Lee Miller and Edwin Gaustad, stress the mature Madison's indifference to issues of religious faith. Within the last two years, John Noonan, a Catholic intellectual and jurist, has pushed the pendulum back toward Reeves by insisting that Madison was "a pious Christian," a "true follower" of Jesus and that he was guided by a "faith . . . palpably alive, a faith stupendous in modern eyes, a faith that God in us speaks to us." He spoke, Noonan concluded, "as a believer in Christianity's special light," as one who "looks to the evangelization of the world."

...

Hagbard Celine

07-06-2007, 09:27 AM

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 10:12 AM

LOki

07-06-2007, 10:17 AM

Perhaps. It's pretty hard to pigeonhole Madison on religion:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htmlI think is difficult to pidgoenhole any of the Founders on their particular religion when it comes to the way they dealt with the founding of this nation. I think that difficulty is instructive. I think that it is a tesatement to the lessons of their most recent experiences with religious oppression, and to their humility on this subject that, as a body, they almost universally refused to assert that one religious view could demand a monopoly on morality by any rational criteria. These lessons, and this humility, are the foundations for the clearly constructed separation between church and state--not a separation God and men, but a separation of the authoritarian appurtenance religion has on the conscience of men, and the potential institionalized excercise of force to subjugate one man's conscience to the religion of another.

-Cp

07-06-2007, 10:19 AM

The whole thread is a farce. "America" or "Americuh" is not a country. The nation I live in is called The United States. You don't hear China calling itself Asia do you? America is the continent we live on. It's not our country's name.

Anyone knows that when ANYONE says "America" in this sense that they mean the USA... Just go to Canada - they'll refer to you as an "American"...

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 10:21 AM

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 10:27 AM

I think is difficult to pidgoenhole any of the Founders on their particular religion when it comes to the way they dealt with the founding of this nation. I think that difficulty is instructive. I think that it is a tesatement to the lessons of their most recent experiences with religious oppression, and to their humility on this subject that, as a body, they almost universally refused to assert that one religious view could demand a monopoly on morality by any rational criteria. These lessons, and this humility, are the foundations for the clearly constructed separation between church and state--not a separation God and men, but a separation of the authoritarian appurtenance religion has on the conscience of men, and the potential institionalized excercise of force to subjugate one man's conscience to the religion of another.

Your argument thus far has been nothing more than just your opinion. Here are some facts...

Much more... (http://www.endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm)

THE PURITANS IN THE NEW WORLD.

These were exciting times for men and women of vision. The chance to set up new life in America had arrived. And it was a Godsend. Here was a fresh opportunity for Puritan Reformers and Pilgrim separatists. They could start out afresh and lay a new foundation in a new land. Over in the English colonies they could then proceed to build an entirely new society from the ground up. They faced many uncertainties. There were the deals with the merchants and the ship captains. And then there was that perilous passage on the high seas. They also knew that they would face even more dangers and toils as they came ashore in the New World. The first colonists struggled just to survive. They had to carve out a new life for themselves and for their families in a howling wilderness.
Puritan life in America would be difficult. But even in the midst of these great physical dangers they believed that their efforts in the New World would be greatly blessed and rewarded. They believed that they and their descendants, in a spiritual way at least, would be far better off. They would have a better future. To the Puritans this was what really mattered. The migration to America was a giant leap of faith. But Christian men of good will were quite willing to take the risk. As they worked hard to establish a new homeland for their wives and families they would come to know a God of Providence in a deeper way. Would the New World remain free of the corruption and the injustices they had seen and experienced in the Old World?
History would tell.

The signing of the Mayflower Compact.

The Puritans wasted no time in laying down a Biblical foundation for their new nation. We see evidence of this from records of the time. The Mayflower Compact is another case in point. The fact that the Puritans and Pilgrims established a community in the wilderness based upon the Bible was no surprise. It sprang up quite naturally and easily from the congregational lifestyle most of them took part in. Their social and political life as well as their religious life was all bundled together. They were an extended Christian family. And they lived and died together in close company. They were fully dependent upon God's grace and His Providence. And they were also dependent upon each other.

Politics and religion was not a problem for Puritans in the New World. Both came together at the same place. Their religious life and their social and political life was in a collective and co-operative unity. It was all part of their communal life out there in the colonies. Colonial society was centered around their Christian 'meeting places'. Sunday was a big day in the colonies. It was a day for worship and sharing of the scriptures. It was also a day for a communal meal and for socializing. Sunday afternoon was also a time for politics. It was a time to discuss and decide what needed to be done in the colony.

For the Puritans in the English colonies the issue of 'separation of church and state' was not an issue. They were a fairly egalitarian group of people and they were living together in the wilderness. As people of the Reformation they were in substantial agreement on matters of religion. They had also been subjected to the same sort of persecutions together. Now here in America things were looking up. There was little overbearing state authority to bother them. Nor was there an oppressive state church hierarchy to spoon-feed them and set their religious agenda for them. They were now being given a chance to take personal responsibility before God for their new situation. Each of them had their Bibles and their own personal responsibility and authority under God. And now they had been given freedom to set up their own church-state reality.

Much more... (http://www.endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm)

Hagbard Celine

07-06-2007, 10:35 AM

The United States of "AMERICA."

"Canada of AMERICA." "Mexico of AMERICA." "Panama of AMERICA." Yep, that's the name of the continent. Good job!

LOki

07-06-2007, 10:53 AM

I agree, to a degree. There absolutely was a wall constructed regarding the imposition of religion, of any stripes onto the people. Yes, there were states that carried over that legacy from colonial times, but not for long. Right. We are together on this particular page.

What wasn't demanded, but is moreso today is the argument that believers of any stripe, but particularly enforced regarding Christians, should be unable to use their religious convictions in public discourse.This is common accusation I just can't get my arms around. There's nothing at all that prevents a Christian politician from asserting that we should do "X" because that's what Jesus would do. Nothing. What is prevented by our constitution--to protect those don't believe in the moral authority of Jesus from those who would make every and all items of their personal political wish lists something that Jesus would do--is to allow a politcian make "what would Jesus do?" the argumentative criteria for the authority of the governemnt to act. Nothing more.

While codified in public schools, there has been carry over towards labeling beliefs, stupidity and such. That is not 'tolerant.'I don't know of any school that codifies religious beliefs as stupid, but if there are such schools, they are wrong for doing so. I can't say there is anything about "belief" that should make "belief" immune from the label "stupid." And if a "belief" is indeed "stupid," there's no reason that those who possess it should expect the "stupidity" to be tolerated. I'll admit that I'm no advocate for tolerance for tolerance's sake. Take that for what it's worth.

glockmail

07-06-2007, 10:56 AM

I didn't think you'd back up your argument. I knew you wouldn't back up yours.

glockmail

07-06-2007, 10:58 AM

The whole thread is a farce. "America" or "Americuh" is not a country. The nation I live in is called The United States. You don't hear China calling itself Asia do you? America is the continent we live on. It's not our country's name. We like to use that term because it belittles the rest of the losers on the continent as well as pisses off members of the Democrat party.

:laugh2:

Hagbard Celine

07-06-2007, 11:00 AM

We like to use that term because it belittles the rest of the losers on the continent as well as pisses off members of the Democrat party.

:laugh2:

I'm glad to see your partisanship is still as strong as ever. With that attitude you'll ensure that society stays as divided as ever! Good job there fella!
http://thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/thumbs-up-matt.jpg

glockmail

07-06-2007, 11:04 AM

I'm glad to see your partisanship is still as strong as ever. With that attitude you'll ensure that society stays as divided as ever! Good job there fella!
.....

What's wrong with partisanship? Or division?

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Right. We are together on this particular page.

This is common accusation I just can't get my arms around. There's nothing at all that prevents a Christian politician from asserting that we should do "X" because that's what Jesus would do. Nothing. What is prevented by our constitution--to protect those don't believe in the moral authority of Jesus from those who would make every and all items of their personal political wish lists something that Jesus would do--is to allow a politcian make "what would Jesus do?" the argumentative criteria for the authority of the governemnt to act. Nothing more.

I don't know of any school that codifies religious beliefs as stupid, but if there are such schools, they are wrong for doing so. I can't say there is anything about "belief" that should make "belief" immune from the label "stupid." And if a "belief" is indeed "stupid," there's no reason that those who possess it should expect the "stupidity" to be tolerated. I'll admit that I'm no advocate for tolerance for tolerance's sake. Take that for what it's worth.

I put the last point wrong, I didn't mean to imply schools saying religion was stupid, though I remember some in high school implying such. When I said 'codified,' I meant another wall, which while not actually done by law, if mostly adhered to, keeping religion out. When not adhered to, rarely is it discussed in regular level classes in a comparative way and probably should be more widely available.

However, I very much doubt you would find a three week exploration of Christianity, Judaism, Deism, Buddhism, etc. We do find this though:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

While short of indoctrination in a traditional sense, not sure what the mindset of a teacher that wrote and presented the lesson plan. I know I do not have 3 weeks to devote to The Roman Empire, The Constitution, or The Civil War.

LOki

07-06-2007, 11:32 AM

However, I very much doubt you would find a three week exploration of Christianity, Judaism, Deism, Buddhism, etc. We do find this though:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.htm

While short of indoctrination in a traditional sense, not sure what the mindset of a teacher that wrote and presented the lesson plan. I know I do not have 3 weeks to devote to The Roman Empire, The Constitution, or The Civil War.I hear you, but I am carefully sympathetic to this. It's one thing to spend three weeks playing religion with Islam, particularly if you play it like you'd play religion with the ancient Greek religions for the purposes of understanding a cultural context--it is an entirely another thing to treat Christianity the exact same way in this country. On the one hand you have the fundamentalists screaming at you for not treating them equally, and then on the other hand you'll get those same fundamantalists screaming at you for treating Christianity equally. You just can't reason with the irrational.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 11:38 AM

I hear you, but I am carefully sympathetic to this. It's one thing to spend three weeks playing religion with Islam, particularly if you play it like you'd play religion with the ancient Greek religions for the purposes of understanding a cultural context--it is an entirely another thing to treat Christianity the exact same way in this country. On the one hand you have the fundamentalists screaming at you for not treating them equally, and then on the other hand you'll get those same fundamantalists screaming at you for treating Christianity equally. You just can't reason with the irrational.

So Muslims are rational, Christians irrational?

Hagbard Celine

07-06-2007, 11:42 AM

What's wrong with partisanship? Or division?

Ever heard the one about the Tower of Babble?

Pale Rider

07-06-2007, 11:54 AM

Don't convolute the question with your inane remarks and quotes, pr.

You indicate an opinion and provided no proof. Give us the proof and only then will we understand.

Right in front of your face, and yet you liberal God haters blow past it like it wasn't even there. Amazing.

LOki

07-06-2007, 12:00 PM

So Muslims are rational, Christians irrational?Non-sequitur?

Abbey Marie

07-06-2007, 12:53 PM

Ever heard the one about the Tower of Babble?

No, but I have heard of the Tower of Babel. ;)

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 12:57 PM

Non-sequitur?

You wrote it, not me. ;)

LOki

07-06-2007, 02:50 PM

Sorry. Missed this.
Your argument thus far has been nothing more than just your opinion. Here are some facts...
<a href="http://www.endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm">The Puritans fled religious persecution in the Old World, just so they could practice religious persecution in the New World.</a>Your "facts" are about 125 years from relevent. Yet it's still a good thing all that theocratic bullshit was wisely excluded by those who actually founded the USA.<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</blockquote>As for my own opinion, I have backed up my argument. With this:<blockquote>John Adams:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>James Madison:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."</blockquote>But if that's not enough, there's this:<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>John Adams:
"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>John Adams, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_United_States_Congress#Senate">unanimous 5th Senate</a>:
"As the Government of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11">the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion</a>; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>George Washington:
"I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. "</blockquote>And tihs:<blockquote>James Madison:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."</blockquote>And this:<blockquote>Benjamin Franklin:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England." </blockquote>And this:<blockquote>James Madison:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."</blockquote>How about that for a substantiated argument? Have you got anything not asserted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or some other contemporary theocratic Christian Nation aspirant, or will you avoid doing so by claiming that the words of the men who founded our nation, and whose principles were codified in our constitution, are not relevent? Can you come up with that long overlooked reference to Christ, or any reference in any founding document that is unambiguously a principle held only by Christians, or will you simply and blindly ascribe every sensible principle of governance that every society ever held as sensible, to be Christian principles, wether or not you can substantiate your claims with evidence?

If you want an actual fact Pale Rider, here's one: Believing with all your heart that our government is based upon Christianity does not make it so.

glockmail

07-06-2007, 02:51 PM

Ever heard the one about the Tower of Babble? Yes. What's your point?

LOki

07-06-2007, 02:52 PM

You wrote it, not me. ;)You are certainly making something up and claiming I said it. Cut it out.

glockmail

07-06-2007, 02:53 PM

....<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</blockquote> .....

Don't see his name as a signer on the founding documents.

LOki

07-06-2007, 03:03 PM

Don't see his name as a signer on the founding documents.I can only hope then that being a signatory to one of our founding documents is the sole criteria you'll accept for being one of the Founders of this country.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 03:10 PM

You are certainly making something up and claiming I said it. Cut it out.

That was in response to this:

Originally Posted by LOki View Post
I hear you, but I am carefully sympathetic to this. It's one thing to spend three weeks playing religion with Islam, particularly if you play it like you'd play religion with the ancient Greek religions for the purposes of understanding a cultural context--it is an entirely another thing to treat Christianity the exact same way in this country. On the one hand you have the fundamentalists screaming at you for not treating them equally, and then on the other hand you'll get those same fundamantalists screaming at you for treating Christianity equally. You just can't reason with the irrational.

My response:

So Muslims are rational, Christians irrational?

LOki

07-06-2007, 03:14 PM

That was in response to this:

My response:Since nothing I said meant being Muslim means being rational, and nothing I said meant being Christian means being irrational, I take your response to be unrelated to something I said; thus my response to you: "Non-Sequitur?"

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 03:30 PM

Since nothing I said meant being Muslim means being rational, and nothing I said meant being Christian means being irrational, I take your response to be unrelated to something I said; thus my response to you: "Non-Sequitur?"

On the one hand you have the fundamentalists screaming at you for not treating them equally, and then on the other hand you'll get those same fundamantalists screaming at you for treating Christianity equally. You just can't reason with the irrational. What of those that do not fit into fundamenalists by either of your examples?

LOki

07-06-2007, 03:39 PM

What of those that do not fit into fundamenalists by either of your examples?Elucidate. You'll have to forgive me; I sense a trap based on a wish for me to paint Christians with the "retarded" brush.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 03:42 PM

Elucidate. You'll have to forgive me; I sense a trap based on a wish for me to paint Christians with the "retarded" brush.

I'm not trying to 'trap' you or anyone. On the other hand, I could use help with spelling fundamentalists. LOL!

LOki

07-06-2007, 03:45 PM

I'm not trying to 'trap' you or anyone. On the other hand, I could use help with spelling fundamentalists. LOL!Compressed lap-top keyboard. It fills my world with hate.

Kathianne

07-06-2007, 03:47 PM

Compressed lap-top keyboard. It fills my world with hate.

That doesn't sound good. My G-5 is all about love. ;)

LOki

07-06-2007, 04:18 PM

That doesn't sound good. My G-5 is all about love. ;)That sounds dirty. :D

Kathianne

07-07-2007, 12:03 AM

That sounds dirty. :D

:laugh2: It's all in your mind!

Pale Rider

07-07-2007, 05:00 AM

If you want an actual fact Pale Rider, here's one: Believing with all your heart that our government is based upon Christianity does not make it so.

Well, I think it's too bad you've blinded yourself to the truth. Your hatred for Christianity has clouded your mind, and closed off your ability to comprehend simple facts.

America was founded either in whole or in part, on Christianity. It's a fact. A welll known fact, and all the effort in the world to argue otherwise is just a waste of time. Had our government NOT been founded on Christian principles, NO WHERE would you see, "IN GOD WE TRUST", or you would NOT have to, "SWEAR ON THE BIBLE BEFORE TESTIFYING IN COURT", etc., etc..

This article may help you out L, it's too bad you've taken it upon yourself to try and argue a point that just isn't true...

America: Fundamentally Religious

by Gary Glenn and John Stack

A host of publically affirmed expressions of faith underscore the preeminent role of religion in American life dating back to the founding.

Judicially imposed public secularism, America's new philosophy, relegates religion to a purely private affair. Religion still stubbornly maintains a place in our public life, however. Whether the public religious traditions that Americans have maintained are symbolic gestures or religiously significant, many Americans continue to practice their faith in public.
Students in public schools may pray privately in class or in the cafeteria over lunch, if they do so silently. They also have the opportunity to study the Bible as literature, comparative religions, and the philosophy of religion. In high schools throughout the nation, thousands of religious clubs congregate after instructional hours, so long as other extracurricular clubs are also allowed to meet.
The congressional and military chaplaincies still in existence trace their origins back to the First Congress. President Eisenhower added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and President Lincoln added In God We Trust to our coins. Many political speeches, especially those given by presidents, continue to employ religious rhetoric. In his 1992 State of the Union message, George Bush proclaimed, "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War." President Clinton has also found occasion to use the rhetoric of religion, particularly when speaking to African-American Baptists.
The Supreme Court occupies a courtroom that posts the Ten Commandments. In 1993, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), making it more difficult for government to prohibit conduct motivated by religious beliefs. In 1996, the Supreme Court declared the RFRA unconstitutional, implying that the Court, not Congress, defines religious liberty. Undeterred by the Court's attempt to supplant the people and their elected representatives, the House of Representatives recently passed the Ten Commandments Defense Act, which would allow public officials to display the commandments in classrooms and other government venues.
Three of our national holidays are importantly religious. Thanksgiving is "a national holiday for giving thanks to God" and Christmas is "the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus; celebrated on December 25 ... now generally observed as a legal holiday" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language). Christians have maintained the religious tradition of displaying the creche at Christmas and Jews the menorah during Hanukkah, though nowadays they are usually required to share public space with Santa and his reindeer. We also celebrate the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.'s life with a national holiday.

The faith of our fathers

The late M.E. Bradford argued that 50 of the 55 framers of the U.S. Constitution were Christians "and that their political philosophies were deeply influenced by their religious convictions." That may be a stretch, however, since many of the founders leaned toward deism. Catherine Albanese pointed out that at least 52 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons. Nonreligious elites and those who dissent from the religious views of the majority lack the power to remove religion from public life through the democratic process, so they do so through judges.

Whatever the particular faith of individual founders, they more or less subscribed to the same morality. James Madison made explicit the connection between this shared morality and America's future: "We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" (June 20, 1785).
Thomas Jefferson pointed out in his first inaugural address that Americans were "enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man." Tocqueville, the celebrated analyst of American democracy, later observed the same phenomenon, noting that in the United States "all [sects] preach the same morality in the name of God."
Tocqueville detected a "strict Puritanism that presided at the birth of the English colonies in America." This Puritanism flexed its political muscle by passing blue laws to encourage citizens to keep the Sabbath and penalize blasphemy, gaming, and idleness. The weight of public opinion put teeth in these measures, to such an extent that Tocqueville noticed that on Sunday, American trade and industry ceased altogether.
Tocqueville observed that the opinions of the "Puritan founders of the American republics ... have left deep traces on the minds of their descendants." The powerful influence of this Puritan spirit in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries fueled the Prohibition movement and the ill-fated Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, our Puritan spirit is still with us--only now it focuses on different objects than it did earlier.
Contemporary American attitudes toward drugs, tobacco, and alcohol are far less tolerant than those found in non-Puritan Western countries. Americans who risk longevity for the pleasure of engaging in these particular vices are taxed more heavily than are their counterparts in non-Puritan Western countries. Of course, Americans find it ever more difficult to keep the Sabbath holy in an increasingly money-oriented culture, and this is due, at least partly, to the Supreme Court. In Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985), the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut statute mandating that employers make efforts to allow their employees to observe the Sabbath.

Why Americans have kept some public religious traditions and abandoned others

This question has been answered more by unelected cultural and legal elites than by either the American people as a whole or their elected and removable representatives. Nonreligious elites and those who dissent from the religious views of the majority lack the power to remove religion from public life through the democratic process, so they do so through judges.
In the 1940s, under prodding from such elites, the Supreme Court began to secularize American democracy. Secularism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state." This concept did not exist at the time of America's founding. It came into being only in 1851 in the work of G.J. Holyoake, who sought a word "expressing a certain positive and ethical element, which the terms 'infidel', 'sceptic' and 'atheist' do not express." Thus, when judges impose secularism, they are not enforcing the Constitution as the people consented to it. They are enforcing what they believe to be good policy.
The Supreme Court imposed secularism on American democracy through a novel and frankly unprecedented reading of the First Amendment's establishment clause. First, in 1940 the Court invented a wholly new constitutional category called "civil liberties." This notion of liberty permitted one person, who might find offensive the public expression of widely held communal religious beliefs, to trump and thereby prohibit expression of those beliefs in public space, especially schools.
Civil liberties secularism has rendered revealed religion incompatible with any significant place in public life. That is, religious believers may follow their religious beliefs in public affairs only insofar as they agree with secularism. Particular religious beliefs are "sectarian" and hence impermissible public policy.
The new civil liberties secularism is in striking contrast to liberty traditionally understood as civil liberty. The latter is the language of Blackstone, the common law, and The Federalist, which speak of it in the context of the problem of maintaining "the order of society."
Civil liberty first appears in John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but not until the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) is it given explicit judicial definition. "Civil liberty is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws and no further, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." It is "that state in which each individual has the power to pursue his own happiness according to his own views of his interest, and the dictates of his conscience, unrestrained, except by equal, just and impartial laws."
The key point is that liberty understood as civil liberty did not privilege an individual's power to the extent of requiring the laws to grant it as much latitude as possible. The laws only had to be "equal, just and impartial," thereby giving as much emphasis to restraints of such laws on an individual's power as to his license to exercise that power. The modern civil liberties idea that "rights are trump" is alien to civil liberty.
The Court's new secular regime requires that all Americans understand religion as a wholly private matter lacking either public encouragement or consequence. The seed of this view was planted in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which said that the establishment clause mandated government neutrality between religion and nonreligion.
This meant that, in public life, nonreligion would constitutionally dominate over religion. The first manifestation of this domination was finding unconstitutional government-sponsored religious instruction in public schools in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948). The easily discernible domination was finding unconstitutional publicly sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington Township v. Schempp (1963).
Judicially imposed public secularism rejects the public religious pluralism established by the founders, who considered morality fostered by religion as a foundation for, rather than a barrier against, democratic government that is also free.
The civil liberties regime replaces constitutionally permitted public religious pluralism with constitutionally mandated public secularism. This regime's novelty is indicated superficially by its name. Although now a preeminent category of constitutional law, civil liberties first appears as a term of art in a Supreme Court opinion only in 1940. Prior to that time, according to then Professor Felix Frankfurter, civil liberties was only "a very loose expression" used in communication with "the laity." Later Justice Frankfurter introduced civil liberties into our constitutional law, thereby laying secularism's foundation.
We have public religious traditions because the old civil liberty regime permitted the relation of religion to public life to be defined by local representative bodies, state legislatures, and Congress. This permitted religion significant expression in public life. It assumed a public religious pluralism, which permitted legislatures to work out pragmatically the relation between religious belief, churches, and government without conforming to a constitutional theory of what that must be. This religious pluralism meant that the Constitution was neutral between religious sects. The situations of the religious sects were determined politically, not constitutionally. But government was not constitutionally required to be neutral about morality. The Supreme Court justified Congress, outlawing Mormon-approved "bigamy and polygamy, which are crimes by the laws of the civilized and Christian countries" (Davis v. Beason, 1890).
Public religious pluralism, not public secularism, was the constitutional relation between religion and democratic government that Madison defended in The Federalist 51.

In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.

The Federalists assumed that religious rights included religion's ability to influence public policy through truck and bargaining among the multiplicity of sects. The founders thought this system would so limit any particular sect's influence as generally to produce "justice and the general good." In contrast, the Supreme Court's secularism confines religion to the private sphere and marginalizes it from the public sphere.
The Supreme Court's secularism has gone forward under the banner, or perhaps camouflage, of Jefferson's wall of separation. His private view of the proper relationship between the government and religion as requiring "a wall of separation between Church and State" has been elevated to constitutional status by the Court. This famous phrase first appeared in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut (1802) and echoed their own Roger Williams, who had spoken of "a wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world." Thus Jefferson hinted to the Baptists that the First Amendment enshrined their political theology in the Constitution. Jefferson, the putative patron saint of contemporary secularism, partially agrees with secularists in opposing public funding for churches. But that secularism, using Jefferson's wall metaphor, goes beyond Jefferson, who never argued that tax support for religiously grounded moral instruction in schools was unconstitutional.
Judicially imposed public secularism rejects the public religious pluralism established by the founders, who considered morality fostered by religion as a foundation for, rather than a barrier against, democratic government that is also free. Jefferson proclaimed for America in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with rights "by our Creator." Elsewhere he asked, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"
The few public religious traditions America has retained are largely symbolic, not to say trivial, remnants of when religiously grounded moral virtue was thought to be publicly important and therefore to be publicly encouraged. Recently, controversy erupted over the Ten Commandments Defense Act, which would permit their public display in classrooms and other public areas. Displaying them will significantly depart from public secularism only when teachers are once again allowed to point to the commandments and tell Bobby that he violated God's law against stealing when he made off with Chuck's crayons. The school voucher movement may depart from the "wall of separation" if parents are permitted to use vouchers for religious schools. But watch for restrictions on religious liberty to follow them; for example, compulsory teaching of evolution, prohibiting teaching creation, or requiring teachers to assume the acceptability of sexual relations outside of marriage.

http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/puritan/puritan.shtml

LOki

07-07-2007, 06:25 AM

Well, I think it's too bad you've blinded yourself to the truth. Your hatred for Christianity has clouded your mind, and closed off your ability to comprehend simple facts.

America was founded either in whole or in part, on Christianity. It's a fact. A welll known fact, and all the effort in the world to argue otherwise is just a waste of time. Had our government NOT been founded on Christian principles, NO WHERE would you see, "IN GOD WE TRUST", or you would NOT have to, "SWEAR ON THE BIBLE BEFORE TESTIFYING IN COURT", etc., etc..

This article may help you out L, it's too bad you've taken it upon yourself to try and argue a point that just isn't true...

America: Fundamentally Religious

by Gary Glenn and John Stack

[An essay affirming that the Founding Fathers subscribed to their religions, and made statements expressing such, all punctuated with big, bold, red letters by Pale Rider. An essay written by Gary Glenn and John Stack, who were not any of the Founding Fathers; an essay that fails to refute a single quote from a Founding Father previously provided; and most importantly fails to assert that any principle upon which the US was founded is uniquely a Christian principle, and fails to explain why Christ is so absent from the founding documents of a country alleged to be founded upon His teachings.]

http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/puritan/puritan.shtmlI'm not asserting that none of the Founders practiced religion--so you can step away from that accusation. I'm not asserting that all of the Founders were atheists--step away from that one too. I'm not asserting that none of the Founders were Christians--keep stepping. I'm saying that some of them were not Christians, that it is likely that one or more of them were Atheists, and that among those who actually claimed to be Christians, there was a variety in their religious truths--they certainly were not all Catholics, for instance.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. That doesn't make it appropriate, or constitutional, and there is certainly is not anything about it that makes it foundational several decades after the Constitution was ratified. There's nothing about "IN GOD WE TRUST" that demands anyone to be a Christian--in fact, since you dig facts so much, Jews can trust in God and not beleive that Jesus is God. Atheists can get behind it since trusting in a super-sonic Santa Claus is no worse than trusting in the treasury or later, the Federal Reserve.

There's no constitutional requirement to swear on a Bible in Court. There's no such requirement to swear oaths on a Bible. There never has been. Al that's ever been actually required is a solemn affirmation. Too bad so many Christians can't manage it without a threat from the All-Mighty.

So I'm still waiting Pale. Can you come up with that long overlooked reference to Christ, or any reference in any founding document that is unambiguously a principle held only by Christians, or will you simply and blindly ascribe every sensible principle of governance that every society ever held as sensible, to be Christian principles, wether or not you can substantiate your claims with evidence?

glockmail

07-07-2007, 12:07 PM

I can only hope then that being a signatory to one of our founding documents is the sole criteria you'll accept for being one of the Founders of this country.

Paine was not a Founder. He may have been influential, but as an atheist, I suspect the Founders only took his advice on certain matters and discounted the rest.

Pale Rider

07-07-2007, 12:13 PM

I'm not asserting that none of the Founders practiced religion--so you can step away from that accusation. I'm not asserting that all of the Founders were atheists--step away from that one too. I'm not asserting that none of the Founders were Christians--keep stepping. I'm saying that some of them were not Christians, that it is likely that one or more of them were Atheists, and that among those who actually claimed to be Christians, there was a variety in their religious truths--they certainly were not all Catholics, for instance.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. That doesn't make it appropriate, or constitutional, and there is certainly is not anything about it that makes it foundational several decades after the Constitution was ratified. There's nothing about "IN GOD WE TRUST" that demands anyone to be a Christian--in fact, since you dig facts so much, Jews can trust in God and not beleive that Jesus is God. Atheists can get behind it since trusting in a super-sonic Santa Claus is no worse than trusting in the treasury or later, the Federal Reserve.

There's no constitutional requirement to swear on a Bible in Court. There's no such requirement to swear oaths on a Bible. There never has been. Al that's ever been actually required is a solemn affirmation. Too bad so many Christians can't manage it without a threat from the All-Mighty.

So I'm still waiting Pale. Can you come up with that long overlooked reference to Christ, or any reference in any founding document that is unambiguously a principle held only by Christians, or will you simply and blindly ascribe every sensible principle of governance that every society ever held as sensible, to be Christian principles, wether or not you can substantiate your claims with evidence?

It boils down to this, and it's very simple, "the founders" does not mean "only those in this countries new government." The founders means "ALL" the people of this new country, and they were, by a vast majority, Judeo Christian.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:16 PM

Here's just one (sort of obscure) example of a religious man who signed the Constitution (for Delaware). Given time, I am sure we can come up with many more.

Richard Bassett:
"He was a devout Methodist and held religious meetings at Bohemia Manor [his home] and supported the church financially."

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:17 PM

Here's another:

Abraham Baldwin

1754-1807

Georgia

Clergyman, lawyer; tutor at Yale; chaplain in Continental Army;

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:20 PM

Third:
David Brearly:
When free from his judicial duties, Brearly devoted much energy to lodge and church affairs. He was one of the leading members of the Masonic Order in New Jersey, as well as state vice president of the Society of the Cincinnati, an organization of former officers of the Revolutionary War. In addition, he served as a delegate to the Episcopal General Conference (1786) and helped write the church's prayer book.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:22 PM

Jacob Broom:
Broom also found time for philanthropic and religious activities. He served on the board of trustees of the College of Wilmington and as a lay leader at the Old Swedes Church.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:22 PM

Another signatory:

Daniel Carroll:
...he studied for 6 years (1742-48) under the Jesuits at St. Omer's in Flanders.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:29 PM

Ellsworth, Oliver (1745-1807), one of the nation's founding fathers and third Chief Justice of the United States, received half of his undergraduate education at Yale, and half at Princeton, where he graduated in 1766. In his junior year he and others founded the Well Meaning Club, which later became the Cliosophic Society.
Returning to his home in Windsor, Connecticut, he studied theology and then law

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:30 PM

William Few:
A devout Methodist, he also donated generously to philanthropic causes.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:35 PM

James McHenry:
Active in community affairs, he served as president of the first Bible society in Baltimore in 1813

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:45 PM

And here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton:

"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 03:46 PM

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney:

"For more than fifteen years before his death, he acted as president of the Bible Society of Charleston--an office to which he was named with unanimity by the Christians of almost every sect."

OCA

07-07-2007, 04:39 PM

Abbey, you kick ass! Join my harem!:salute:

glockmail

07-07-2007, 04:48 PM

Abbey, you kick ass! Join my harem!:salute: I think she's too tall for you. :poke:

GW in Ohio

07-07-2007, 07:47 PM

Pale Rider: No offense, but this was one of the dumbest posts ever made:

Well if the founding of America WASN'T rooted in Christianity, then where did all this come from?

IN GOD WE TRUST
HISTORY OF THE MOTTO OF THE USA

Becaue we trust in god, or believe in God, that doesn't make us a "Christian nation."

You do know there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Dilloduck

07-07-2007, 07:52 PM

Pale Rider: No offense, but this was one of the dumbest posts ever made:

Becaue we trust in god, or believe in God, that doesn't make us a "Christian nation."

You do know there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Ya---Islam---When they take over everyone will be pretty appreciative of Christianity.

OCA

07-07-2007, 10:31 PM

Pale Rider: No offense, but this was one of the dumbest posts ever made:

Becaue we trust in god, or believe in God, that doesn't make us a "Christian nation."

You do know there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Sure when they wrote that they were speaking of Allah and Buddah lol.

GW pull your head out of your ass and quit arguing against the unargueable.

Abbey Marie

07-07-2007, 10:43 PM

Abbey, you kick ass! Join my harem!:salute:

:laugh2:

nevadamedic

07-08-2007, 02:25 AM

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

LOki

07-08-2007, 06:06 AM

It boils down to this, and it's very simple, "the founders" does not mean "only those in this countries new government." The founders means "ALL" the people of this new country, and they were, by a vast majority, Judeo Christian.Guess what Pale? You (and Abbey too) must have missed the part where I said;<blockquote>"I'm not asserting that none of the Founders practiced religion--so you can step away from that accusation. I'm not asserting that all of the Founders were atheists--step away from that one too. I'm not asserting that none of the Founders were Christians--keep stepping. I'm saying that some of them were not Christians, that it is likely that one or more of them were Atheists, and that among those who actually claimed to be Christians, there was a variety in their religious truths--they certainly were not all Catholics, for instance."</blockquote>Still applies (all the more so if you include everyone within the borders of the first 13 states, and not just the members of the government), and you still haven't come up with that long overlooked reference to Christ, or any reference in any founding document that is unambiguously a principle held only by Christians, in support of your demand that this is a nation founded on Christianity, rather than a simply a nation founded by, mostly, Christians.

Pale Rider

07-08-2007, 10:37 AM

Pale Rider: No offense, but this was one of the dumbest posts ever made:

Becaue we trust in god, or believe in God, that doesn't make us a "Christian nation."

You do know there are other religions besides Christianity, right?

Oh no offense taken GW... fortunately I realize you don't know your ass from a hole in ground.

glockmail

07-09-2007, 07:43 PM

......you still haven't come up with that long overlooked reference to Christ, or any reference in any founding document that is unambiguously a principle held only by Christians, in support of your demand that this is a nation founded on Christianity, rather than a simply a nation founded by, mostly, Christians.

So who do you think these mostly Christians were refering to in the DOI?

LOki

07-09-2007, 08:56 PM

So who do you think these mostly Christians were refering to in the DOI?Allright you obstinate dumbfuck, if you demand on going there, let's just go ahead and assert they have to be talking about Jesus (which they don't) as if it it's relevent to the question posted-- now do what you have been side stepping this whole time and name one founding principle of this country that is ONLY a Christian principle--because I'll come up one that is not there, yet must be there, for this to actually be a nation founded on Christianity. Just remember that you're the one demanding that the references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" have to neccessarily be references to Jesus. Deal?

manu1959

07-09-2007, 08:59 PM

Allright you obstinate dumbfuck, if you demand on going there, let's just go ahead and assert they have to be talking about Jesus (which they don't) as if it it's relevent to the question posted-- now do what you have been side stepping this whole time and name one founding principle of this country that is ONLY a Christian principle--because I'll come up one that is not there, yet must be there, for this to actually be a nation founded on Christianity. Just remember that you're the one demanding that the references to "Nature's God" and "Creator" have to neccessarily be references to Jesus. Deal?

in god we trust would be refering to which other god?......

the term creator allowed all religions and none to be endowed with certain rights

glockmail

07-09-2007, 09:04 PM

.....now do what you have been side stepping this whole time and name one founding principle of this country that is ONLY a Christian principle--...

Straw Man. The fact that Christianity has commonalities with other philosophies has no bearing on the argument.

BTW thank you for the direct insult. I'll take it as a badge of honor. :coffee:

LOki

07-09-2007, 09:58 PM

Straw Man. The fact that Christianity has commonalities with other philosophies has no bearing on the argument.So says you who loses the argument on the basis that no singly identifable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded upon. I knew you'd tuck tail.

And before you use such big concepts as "Straw-Man," look them up so you can apply them properly. Thanks.

BTW thank you for the direct insult. I'll take it as a badge of honor. :coffee:You're welcome, but Neg Rep is Thanks? So much for your honor. :coffee:

LOki

07-09-2007, 09:59 PM

in god we trust would be refering to which other god?......Despite the fact "In God We Trust" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence...Anybody's god.

the term creator allowed all religions and none to be endowed with certain rights Religions don't have rights, people do.

Missileman

07-09-2007, 10:00 PM

You're welcome, but Neg Rep is Thanks? So much for your honor. :coffee:

There's a thin line between love and hate. In the absence of compliments, he'll take what he can get. :lmao:

musicman

07-10-2007, 07:11 AM

...no singly identifable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded upon.

What do, 1) meticulous checks and balances, 2) a central government kept on a short, jealously guarded leash, and, 3) an ever-devolving path of power over the conduct of everyday life toward states, communities, and - ultimately - the individual, suggest to you?

They suggest to me a fundamental distrust of human nature. That governments - being the creations of imperfect men - must, left unchecked, degrade into tyranny; that man is incapable of rising to some "better aspect" of his nature, and thereby creating an earthly utopia; that the very best we can hope for is man's unfettered exercise of his free will, within the rule of civilized law - these are the inescapable conclusions of a UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE: that man is not perfectible.

Moreover, the bedrock principle of Christianity is that no man can be coerced into salvation; he must come of his own free will. It is likewise in the U.S. Constitution: the POWER to coerce is thwarted at every turn; the free will of the individual is paramount. Show me the like of our Constitution anywhere else in human history, and tell me what drove it.

Does this mean that America is a Christian nation? No. Rather, we are a self-ruling people - according to man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to the matter of human governance. I say hard-won, because human beings tried and failed many times to achieve this, at a horrible cost. The painful lessons we had to learn were:

That man is essentially corrupt.

That - because he is corrupt - the governments he creates MUST tend toward tyranny and coercion.

That this tendency must be thwarted at every turn, if man is ever to be truly free.

In other words, Christian principle.

glockmail

07-10-2007, 07:40 AM

So says you who loses the argument on the basis that no singly identifable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded upon. I knew you'd tuck tail.

And before you use such big concepts as "Straw-Man," look them up so you can apply them properly. Thanks.

You're welcome, but Neg Rep is Thanks? So much for your honor. :coffee:

1. Claiming victory when arriving squarely at defeat seems to be your hallmark.
2. Nice second straw man.
3. Nice deflection of the argument. Try again or lose cred.

glockmail

07-10-2007, 07:42 AM

.....
That man is essentially corrupt.
......

Actually it is: That governments are essentially corrupt.

musicman

07-10-2007, 09:28 AM

Actually it is: That governments are essentially corrupt.

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

Pale Rider

07-10-2007, 09:53 AM

glockmail

07-10-2007, 11:53 AM

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.

musicman

07-10-2007, 12:55 PM

Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.

It's not a theory at all; it is the Constitution taken at face value. Government is a necessary evil - one to be controlled by the governed, and diligently guarded, lest it go the natural way of governments. Just as you say, "governments are essentially corrupt". Why do you suppose that is? What existing condition makes government so?

It's human frailty, of course.

Kathianne

07-10-2007, 12:58 PM

It's not a theory at all; it is the Constitution taken at face value. Government is a necessary evil - one to be controlled by the governed, and diligently guarded, lest it go the natural way of governments. Just as you say, "governments are essentially corrupt". Why do you suppose that is? What existing condition makes government so?

It's human frailty, of course.

Exactly, the world is Hobbsian and government flows from the idea that we don't want only the biggest and smartest to survive. From that point on, you set the best we can.

musicman

07-10-2007, 01:27 PM

Exactly, the world is Hobbsian and government flows from the idea that we don't want only the biggest and smartest to survive. From that point on, you set the best we can.

And, that Christian principle in the matter of human governance can arrive at similar (not quite identical) conclusions WITHOUT calling for the roasting of Hobbsian thinkers as heretics underlines my "man's hard-won, enlightened understanding" qualification. That which is, in the matter of religion, coercive, has become theocratic. And, that which is theocratic has abandoned Christian principle. If this were called a Christian nation, it would, at that moment, cease to be so.

LOki

07-10-2007, 06:51 PM

What do, 1) meticulous checks and balances, 2) a central government kept on a short, jealously guarded leash, and, 3) an ever-devolving path of power over the conduct of everyday life toward states, communities, and - ultimately - the individual, suggest to you?

They suggest to me a fundamental distrust of human nature. That governments - being the creations of imperfect men - must, left unchecked, degrade into tyranny; that man is incapable of rising to some "better aspect" of his nature, and thereby creating an earthly utopia; that the very best we can hope for is man's unfettered exercise of his free will, within the rule of civilized law - these are the inescapable conclusions of a UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE: that man is not perfectible.LOL. You made this up. You're about to tell me that ONLY Christians hold this principle? Not Jews, not Muslims, not Bhuddists, not humanists, not rational people? Or perhaps you are asserting that this principle is neccessarily contingent upon believing that Jesus is God? Please.

Moreover, the bedrock principle of Christianity is that no man can be coerced into salvation; he must come of his own free will.A complete denial of everything in the Bible. You should read it before you post such nonsense. The bedrock principle of Chrisianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.

It is likewise in the U.S. Constitution: the POWER to coerce is thwarted at every turn; the free will of the individual is paramount. Show me the like of our Constitution anywhere else in human history, and tell me what drove it.The application of the unlimited coercive power of God in government is a foundational principle not found in the US Constitution.

Does this mean that America is a Christian nation? No. Rather, we are a self-ruling people - according to man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to the matter of human governance. I say hard-won, because human beings tried and failed many times to achieve this, at a horrible cost. The painful lessons we had to learn were:

That man is essentially corrupt.

That - because he is corrupt - the governments he creates MUST tend toward tyranny and coercion.

That this tendency must be thwarted at every turn, if man is ever to be truly free.

In other words, Christian principle.Yet these notions are still not uniquely Christian principles, and there is nothing about those principles that is necessarily contingent upon the belief that Jesus is God.

1. Claiming victory when arriving squarely at defeat seems to be your hallmark.
2. Nice second straw man.
3. Nice deflection of the argument. Try again or lose cred.
1. The most LOLsome example of self-unaware projection ever. You submit zero in the manner of substantiated support for your argument and then claim I have arrived at defeat--and you put that little bow of ignorance regarding what "hallmark" means on this fatuous package of dumb. BRAVO!!!! :clap:
2. Plus one more obstinantly dumbfuck refusal to understand what a Straw-Man argument is. All the more LOLsome.
3. Your nonsensical challenge--from someone sensible, a challenge worth considering; from you, it's just clown shoes.

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.
Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.I agree with Glockmail. [Let us observe a moment so that everyone can recover] The central presumption of the U.S. Constitution that Glockmail presents, is expressed in the preamble to The Bill of Rights:<blockquote>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."</blockquote>The ninth and the tenth "declaratory and restrictive clauses" confirm Glockmail's assertion that the central presumption of the U.S. Constitution is not that human beings are inherently corrupt, but rather that unlimited coercive power is inherently abusive.

glockmail

07-10-2007, 08:11 PM

musicman

07-10-2007, 09:54 PM

LOL. You made this up. You're about to tell me that ONLY Christians hold this principle? Not Jews, not Muslims, not Bhuddists, not humanists, not rational people? Or perhaps you are asserting that this principle is neccessarily contingent upon believing that Jesus is God? Please.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

A complete denial of everything in the Bible. You should read it before you post such nonsense. The bedrock principle of Chrisianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.

Show me.

The application of the unlimited coercive power of God in government is a foundational principle not found in the US Constitution.

Right. My point exactly.

Yet these notions are still not uniquely Christian principles, and there is nothing about those principles that is necessarily contingent upon the belief that Jesus is God.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

I agree with Glockmail. [Let us observe a moment so that everyone can recover] The central presumption of the U.S. Constitution that Glockmail presents, is expressed in the preamble to The Bill of Rights:<blockquote>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."</blockquote>

In other words: tighten the leash on central government EVEN MORE; we have seen the inevitable aspirations of the governments of men from time immemorial. Let's do it right this time - chain that bastard to a stake!

The ninth and the tenth "declaratory and restrictive clauses" confirm Glockmail's assertion that the central presumption of the U.S. Constitution is not that human beings are inherently corrupt, but rather that unlimited coercive power is inherently abusive.

And why is that so?

LOki

07-11-2007, 12:00 AM

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.Why? What is the purpose of accepting your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature; and then doing so, how does that in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

Show me.Open your Bible, and look.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.You're right: it is easy. Every government system ever, proceeded from an assumption of man's imperfect nature--all of them.

And why is that so?Because they confirm that rights are retained by the people, and powers a limited to those enumerated--that's why.

musicman

07-11-2007, 12:20 AM

Why? What is the purpose of accepting your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature;

What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?

and then doing so, how does that in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

Fine. Cite another example of a governmental system structured upon this principle.

Open your Bible, and look.

You disappoint me, LOki. You know nothing of God, yet you talk tripe about the Gospel.

You're right: it is easy. Every government system ever, proceeded from an assumption of man's imperfect nature--all of them.

And limited the central government accordingly for that reason? You're wrong.

Because they confirm that rights are retained by the people, and powers a limited to those enumerated--that's why.

But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?

LOki

07-11-2007, 04:19 AM

What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?There's no response to this question begging nonsense.

Fine. Cite another example of a governmental system structured upon this principle.Having accepted your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature, how does citing another example of government that procedes under the assumption of man's flawed nature, in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

You disappoint me, LOki. You know nothing of God, yet you talk tripe about the Gospel.You accuse without basis, and display obstinent ignorance while claiming I know nothing of God.:fu:

And limited the central government accordingly for that reason? You're wrong.Every governement proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature--I am not wrong in this, unless you can point out the government that proceeds from an assumption of man's inherent perfection. But the very best part is that you have to demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's inherent perfection, to demostrate the unique status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Good luck with that.

But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?:laugh2: It's good to know that petitio principii is still the breakfast of champions amongs theocrats.

GW in Ohio

07-11-2007, 07:46 AM

There's no response to this question begging nonsense.

Having accepted your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature, how does citing another example of government that procedes under the assumption of man's flawed nature, in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

You accuse without basis, and display obstinent ignorance while claiming I know nothing of God.:fu:

Every governement proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature--I am not wrong in this, unless you can point out the government that proceeds from an assumption of man's inherent perfection. But the very best part is that you have to demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's inherent perfection, to demostrate the unique status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Good luck with that.

:laugh2: It's good to know that petitio principii is still the breakfast of champions amongs theocrats.

LOKI: Thank you for engaging these wombats on this issue. You should get a medal for your patience and perseverence.

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.

Thanks again for engaging these whiny bastards.

LOki

07-11-2007, 10:55 AM

LOKI: Thank you for engaging these wombats on this issue.It's my pleasure.

You should get a medal for your patience and perseverence.Maybe so, but I prefer cash. :coffee:

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.Indeed. A valid morality does not need to be validated by the coercive force appurtentant to a Government's monopoly regarding violence. That theocrats seek such validation is evidence that their notions of morality are unvalidated by rational means--their claims of moral superiority are irrational.

Thanks again for engaging these whiny bastards.Thanks again.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 10:59 AM

....

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.

.....

Speaking for myself, I have a need for the truth, which is that the USA was indeed founded on Christain principles by Christian men. I don't see any of the other posters on my side of the aisle suggesting otherwise.

GW in Ohio

07-11-2007, 11:40 AM

Speaking for myself, I have a need for the truth, which is that the USA was indeed founded on Christain principles by Christian men. I don't see any of the other posters on my side of the aisle suggesting otherwise.

Actually, I would more or less agree with you. This country was founded by Christian and Deist men (with the odd Jew and some atheists and agnostics thrown in for good measure) on principles that Christianity holds in common with many of the other world religions.

Abbey Marie

07-11-2007, 11:44 AM

Speaking for myself, I have a need for the truth, which is that the USA was indeed founded on Christain principles by Christian men. I don't see any of the other posters on my side of the aisle suggesting otherwise.

Well said, G. All evidence of your statement falls on deaf ears. What a surprise. Yet we are the insecure ones. :rolleyes:

Perhaps our Christianphobics can explain why it bothers them so much that we are a nation founded by Christians, on Christian principles? I have asked this question a few times, and no one seems able to answer.

They prefer to throw up dust by trying to equate factual descriptions of our nation's roots, to a Theocracy. Time to move on from that faux argument-no one here is claiming it was or should be a Theocracy.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 11:52 AM

Actually, I would more or less agree with you. This country was founded by Christian and Deist men (with the odd Jew and some atheists and agnostics thrown in for good measure) on principles that Christianity holds in common with many of the other world religions. There's that bullshit about deists again. :rolleyes:

GW in Ohio

07-11-2007, 12:11 PM

There's that bullshit about deists again. :rolleyes:

From Wikipedia:

Deism in America

In America, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by Deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Wilson,[29] and James Madison.[30] Although these men were members of traditional Christian denominations (Hugh Williamson was a Presbyterian and the rest were Episcopalians), their political speeches show distinct Deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly Deist. These include Ethan Allen[31] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize Deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American Deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize Deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."

Currently (as of 2007) there is an ongoing controversy in the United States over whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or Deists or something in between.[32] Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, for some of whom the evidence is mixed.[33] However, Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."[34]

LOki

07-11-2007, 12:20 PM

There are foundational Chistian principles that are neccessary for this to be a Christian nation, and those prinicples are conspicuously absent from the list of this nation's founding principles. This nation was founded on rational principles. Christianity holds no monoploly on any of the principles this nation was founded upon. None. Not one.

musicman

07-11-2007, 12:26 PM

There's no response to this question begging nonsense.

How is this...

What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?

...nonsense? It's a perfectly clear and reasonable question. Just once, for the hell of it, why don't you try putting the round peg in the round hole, and see what happens?

Having accepted your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature, how does citing another example of government that procedes under the assumption of man's flawed nature, in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

You're getting ahead of yourself; let's establish first things first. Will you concede that the U.S. Constitution's strict, almost adversarial approach to central government is unique in human history?

You accuse without basis, and display obstinent ignorance while claiming I know nothing of God.:fu:

What other conclusion can I draw when you spout lunacy about the Gospel?

Every governement proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature--I am not wrong in this, unless you can point out the government that proceeds from an assumption of man's inherent perfection.

False conclusion. In the first place, I haven't spoken of perfection; rather, I mentioned perfectibility. In the second place, neither term enters into it - although the communist pipe dream, for example, imagines that man can somehow elevate his nature to a higher, more altruistic plane. This is, of course, nonsense, requiring - as it does - coercion and tyranny for its implementation and perpetuation.

My point is, no government can be said to proceed from the assumption of man's flawed nature if said government imagines itself the guarantor of rights and the answer to all problems. Government is comprised of PEOPLE, you see.

The U.S. Constitution is unique in that it accepts man's fallen and flawed nature and ACTS ACCORDINGLY. Stop looking for a raving theocrat behind every bush long enough to think - reasonably and rationally - about what the Constitution DOES.

But the very best part is that you have to demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's inherent perfection, to demostrate the unique status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Good luck with that.

Ah - my luck holds!

:laugh2: It's good to know that petitio principii is still the breakfast of champions amongs theocrats.

This quote tells me that you have either, 1) failed to read any of my posts in this thread, dealing with theocracy, and the mistaken notion that this is a Christian nation, or, 2) have done so poorly and superficially - in the manner of GW in Ohio - looking only for the dribs and drabs that might serve to reinforce your prejudices. Let's kick the tone of this discussion up a notch, LOki. Let's talk reasonably and rationally.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 12:42 PM

From Wikipedia:

....

Did you write that wiki article or Loki? As it could have been written by anyone and reviewed by no one it's a bullshit source.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 12:45 PM

.... Christianity holds no monoploly on any of the principles this nation was founded upon. None. Not one.Rationality holds no monoploly on any of the principles this nation was founded upon. None. Not one.

GW in Ohio

07-11-2007, 01:22 PM

Did you write that wiki article or Loki? As it could have been written by anyone and reviewed by no one it's a bullshit source.

glockie: I took the trouble to provide support for my contention that the founding fathers either were Deists or were heavily influenced by Deism. That Wikipedia article also presents the standard historical view of the subject.

You can don your mantle of ignorance and say it's bullshit. I could care less; I'm done with you.

Are there any rational conservatives around here?

LOki

07-11-2007, 01:27 PM

How is this...<blockquote>"What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?"</blockquote>...nonsense?"...the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny,..." is question begging. That makes it question begging nonsense.

You're getting ahead of yourself; let's establish first things first. Will you concede that the U.S. Constitution's strict, almost adversarial approach to central government is unique in human history?No. It's not. The Feudal system of government was rabidly adversarial to central government--particularly prior to the notion of The Divine Right of Kings. The city states of Greece were rather adversarial to the notion of central governemnt. The tribal and clan organization of government that was effectivly destroyed by the central governemt of the Roman Empire was by definition adversarial to central government. So the watered down adversarial approach of the US Consitution is in no way unique in human history.

What other conclusion can I draw when you spout lunacy about the Gospel?You continue with this unsupported false accusation as if it is fact--BRAVO! :clap:

False conclusion. In the first place, I haven't spoken of perfection; rather, I mentioned perfectibility.Which only reinforces my assertion that every government proceeds from an assumption of man's imperfection. Thanks.

In the second place, neither term enters into it - although the communist pipe dream, for example, imagines that man can somehow elevate his nature to a higher, more altruistic plane. This is, of course, nonsense, requiring - as it does - coercion and tyranny for its implementation and perpetuation.All of which has alot in common with Christianity, and many other religions--another reinforcement, provided by you, of my argument against the "uniqueness" of this prinicple--Thanks again.

My point is, no government can be said to proceed from the assumption of man's flawed nature if said government imagines itself the guarantor of rights and the answer to all problems.Are you saying that all other governments assert themselves as the guarantor of rights, and the answer to all problems? I don't think any governments do, or ever have--but certain religions make very, very similar claims for themselves.

Ah - my luck holds!:lmao: Not even remotely. :lol: Your luck doesn't even hold it's own breath.

This quote tells me that you have either, 1) failed to read any of my posts in this thread, dealing with theocracy, and the mistaken notion that this is a Christian nation, or, 2) have done so poorly and superficially - in the manner of GW in Ohio - looking only for the dribs and drabs that might serve to reinforce your prejudices. Let's kick the tone of this discussion up a notch, LOki. Let's talk reasonably and rationally.
Yes, let's. That will require you to cease with the question begging assertions you've been so fond of, like:<blockquote>"But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? "</blockquote>And;<blockquote>"Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?"</blockquote>What that quote should have told you musicman, is that I actually read your posts and understand what you write--even if you don't; and if you want to step the conversation up a notch, you're the one who has to abandon the favored logical fallacy of the sanctimoniously certain, and embrace reason and rationality in your discourse.

LOki

07-11-2007, 01:36 PM

Rationality holds no monoploly on any of the principles this nation was founded upon. None. Not one.Rationality is the sole source of the founding principles of this nation--rationality does hold the monopoly.

GW in Ohio

07-11-2007, 02:07 PM

Rationality holds no monoploly on any of the principles this nation was founded upon. None. Not one.

glockie: You don't know jack shit about history, do you?

Ever hear of the Age of Reason?

glockmail

07-11-2007, 04:20 PM

glockie: I took the trouble to provide support for my contention that the founding fathers either were Deists or were heavily influenced by Deism. That Wikipedia article also presents the standard historical view of the subject.

You can don your mantle of ignorance and say it's bullshit. I could care less; I'm done with you.

Are there any rational conservatives around here?

You mean the standard liberal view. To deny that is to deny reason.

glockmail

07-11-2007, 04:22 PM

glockie: You don't know jack shit about history, do you?

Ever hear of the Age of Reason?

I agree. What LOki said was illogical, and I proved it by turning it around on him. :D

glockmail

07-11-2007, 04:23 PM

Rationality is the sole source of the founding principles of this nation--rationality does hold the monopoly.
I'll let you and GW fight over that one. :laugh2:

LOki

07-11-2007, 04:32 PM

I agree. What LOki said was illogical, and I proved it by turning it around on him. :DYou proved nothing by paraphrasing me.

musicman

07-11-2007, 05:01 PM

"...the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny,..." is question begging. That makes it question begging nonsense.

The First Amendment ties central government to a chair. The Tenth Amendment places a snarling bulldog at its feet, on the off-chance that it might break those bonds. I'm making more sense than you'd care to admit, that's all.

No. It's not. The Feudal system of government was rabidly adversarial to central government--particularly prior to the notion of The Divine Right of Kings. The city states of Greece were rather adversarial to the notion of central governemnt. The tribal and clan organization of government that was effectivly destroyed by the central governemt of the Roman Empire was by definition adversarial to central government. So the watered down adversarial approach of the US Consitution is in no way unique in human history.

WATERED DOWN??!!! You're being deliberately obtuse. OK - let's dot every i and cross every t, and end this particular descent into silliness. Of all the governmental systems in human history WHICH ACCEPTED THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN PRINCIPLE - AND WERE NOT OPENLY HOSTILE TO IT - AND DID NOT HAVE TO BE OVERWHELMED AND CONQUERED BY IT - the strict and near-adversarial approach taken by our founding fathers is unique. Sheesh - now I know how a dentist feels!

You continue with this unsupported false accusation as if it is fact--BRAVO! :clap:

I'll let you respond to that in your own words:

The bedrock principle of Christianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.

You're out of your tree, man.

Which only reinforces my assertion that every government proceeds from an assumption of man's imperfection. Thanks.

Give me an example, then - of another governmental system in all of human history which accepts the truth of man's irretrievably flawed and fallen nature, and structures its admittedly imperfect creation - government - accordingly. Thank YOU.

All of which has alot in common with Christianity, and many other religions--another reinforcement, provided by you, of my argument against the "uniqueness" of this prinicple--Thanks again.

I think we've already established your level of expertise on Christianity.

Are you saying that all other governments assert themselves as the guarantor of rights, and the answer to all problems? I don't think any governments do, or ever have--but certain religions make very, very similar claims for themselves.

Do you mean to imply that Christians do this? Examples, please.

:lmao: Not even remotely. :lol: Your luck doesn't even hold it's own breath.

I like the cards I'm holding, LOki. They're the best.

Yes, let's. That will require you to cease with the question begging assertions you've been so fond of, like:<blockquote>"But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? "</blockquote>And;<blockquote>"Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?"</blockquote>What that quote should have told you musicman, is that I actually read your posts and understand what you write--even if you don't; and if you want to step the conversation up a notch, you're the one who has to abandon the favored logical fallacy of the sanctimoniously certain, and embrace reason and rationality in your discourse.

Oh, I'm doing exactly that, LOki. You just don't like where reason and rationality are taking you.

nevadamedic

07-11-2007, 06:08 PM

The First Amendment ties central government to a chair. The Tenth Amendment places a snarling bulldog at its feet, on the off-chance that it might break those bonds. I'm making more sense than you'd care to admit, that's all.

WATERED DOWN??!!! You're being deliberately obtuse. OK - let's dot every i and cross every t, and end this particular descent into silliness. Of all the governmental systems in human history WHICH ACCEPTED THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN PRINCIPLE - AND WERE NOT OPENLY HOSTILE TO IT - AND DID NOT HAVE TO BE OVERWHELMED AND CONQUERED BY IT - the strict and near-adversarial approach taken by our founding fathers is unique. Sheesh - now I know how a dentist feels!

I'll let you respond to that in your own words:

You're out of your tree, man.

Give me an example, then - of another governmental system in all of human history which accepts the truth of man's irretrievably flawed and fallen nature, and structures its admittedly imperfect creation - government - accordingly. Thank YOU.

I think we've already established your level of expertise on Christianity.

Do you mean to imply that Christians do this? Examples, please.

I like the cards I'm holding, LOki. They're the best.

Oh, I'm doing exactly that, LOki. You just don't like where reason and rationality are taking you.

:popcorn:

glockmail

07-11-2007, 08:49 PM

You proved nothing by paraphrasing me. I proved your statement was illogical; hence your argument.

Geolibertarian

07-12-2007, 01:22 AM

Everyone knows that Jesus wrote the Constitution.

musicman

07-12-2007, 01:43 AM

Everyone knows that Jesus wrote the Constitution.

Actually, I think you're confusing "The Constitution" with "Conjunction Junction (What's Your Function?)", the PBS favorite which, of course, Jesus co-wrote with Jimmy Webb.

I think our Savior had a hand in arranging those fine be-bop vocal harmonies, as well.

Kathianne

07-12-2007, 03:11 AM

Actually, I think you're confusing "The Constitution" with "Conjunction Junction (What's Your Function?)", the PBS favorite which, of course, Jesus co-wrote with Jimmy Webb.

I think our Savior had a hand in arranging those fine be-bop vocal harmonies, as well.

I really like "I'm Only A Bill"

glockmail

07-12-2007, 07:45 AM

Everyone knows that Jesus wrote the Constitution. I firmly believe He had a hand in the DOI. :poke:

LOki

07-12-2007, 07:51 AM

The First Amendment ties central government to a chair. The Tenth Amendment places a snarling bulldog at its feet, on the off-chance that it might break those bonds.You sumbit this as if I have disputed it.

I'm making more sense than you'd care to admit, that's all."...the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny,..." is still question begging. That still makes it question begging nonsense.

WATERED DOWN??!!! You're being deliberately obtuse. OK - let's dot every i and cross every t, and end this particular descent into silliness. Of all the governmental systems in human history WHICH ACCEPTED THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN PRINCIPLE - AND WERE NOT OPENLY HOSTILE TO IT - AND DID NOT HAVE TO BE OVERWHELMED AND CONQUERED BY IT - the strict and near-adversarial approach taken by our founding fathers is unique. Sheesh - now I know how a dentist feels!Being adversarial to central governement is NOT UNIQUE to the US government. Relative to many of the other governments with an adversarial approach to central government, the US approach is certainly "watered down". You need everyone to ignore the existence of every government in human history with an adversarial approach to central government, so that your assertion that "...U.S. Constitution's strict, almost adversarial approach to central government is unique in human history" can be accepted as valid--it's not going to happen.

You're out of your tree, man.Yet I'm not the one denying that "the Gospel" asserts something other than Jesus' threat to eternally damn anyone who does not submit to His will.

Give me an example, then - of another governmental system in all of human history which accepts the truth of man's irretrievably flawed and fallen nature, and structures its admittedly imperfect creation - government - accordingly. Thank YOU.I already said ALL OF THEM accepts the truth of man's imperfection. Every repeated instance of you asking for these examples is a denial that I have already done so.

I think we've already established your level of expertise on Christianity.I think we've already established your level of commitment to denying what is clearly asserted in the Bible.

Do you mean to imply that Christians do this? Examples, please.Take for example every instance where Christians assert that embracing Christ makes them better people, and that the strict, universal, and inerrant following of the teachings of Christ would put an end to all problems.

I like the cards I'm holding, LOki. They're the best.Then I'm putting you all in: demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's flawless perfection, because that's what you must do to demostrate the UNIQUE status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Call or fold.

Oh, I'm doing exactly that, LOki. You just don't like where reason and rationality are taking you.You have not abandoned your question begging, you deny reason and rationality in your discourse, and now you project your dislike for where reason and rationality are taking you, upon me.

I proved your statement was illogical; hence your argument.SO you continue to demand without any substantiation. This is nothing but your pervasive and persistent clown-shoe habit of demanding any unsupported opinion you present to be accepted as fact.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 08:00 AM

......SO you continue to demand without any substantiation. This is nothing but your pervasive and persistent clown-shoe habit of demanding any unsupported opinion you present to be accepted as fact.

As I recall it was you who assert your opinion to be fact, and I merely pointed out the obvious flaw in your logic.

LOki

07-12-2007, 08:34 AM

As I recall it was you who assert your opinion to be fact, and I merely pointed out the obvious flaw in your logic.You didn't, but you can attempt to now.

GW in Ohio

07-12-2007, 09:16 AM

I proved your statement was illogical; hence your argument.

glockie: There are righties here who are dumb. We don't hold it against them.

And there are righties here who are willfully dumb. They're kind of annoying.

You're about the only one who's militantly stupid.

theHawk

07-12-2007, 09:25 AM

Here are some quotes from the founding fathers.

This should come with a warning though, these quotes may burn liberal eyes right out of their sockets.

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810"

George Washington:

Farewell Address: 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" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Yup, those founding fathers sure were secularists weren't they!!!

Hagbard Celine

07-12-2007, 09:53 AM

Here are some quotes from the founding fathers.

This should come with a warning though, these quotes may burn liberal eyes right out of their sockets.

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Yup, those founding fathers sure were secularists weren't they!!!

Yes they were. That's why they put wording restricting the government from honoring any one religion IN THE VERY FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

theHawk

07-12-2007, 11:13 AM

Yes they were. That's why they put wording restricting the government from honoring any one religion IN THE VERY FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

You're right, it doesn't honor any ONE religion, that doesn't mean they believed God should be removed entirely from government. Quite the opposite if you'd bother reading their quotes.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The First Amendment simply states that there shall not be a government run church. The government cannot, for example, adopt the Methodist Church as the official religion of America. And it certainly cannot force people to be of a certain religion.
That doesn't mean we can't have laws that reflect the morals dictated by religion. If the majority of the citizens are Christian and share the same morals, then its perfectly fine to make laws accordingly.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 11:38 AM

You didn't, but you can attempt to now. No reason to repeat myself.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 11:39 AM

glockie: There are righties here who are dumb. We don't hold it against them.

And there are righties here who are willfully dumb. They're kind of annoying.

You're about the only one who's militantly stupid.

Coming from you, who has repeatedly ignored a direct challenge, your words and insults are meaningless.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 11:40 AM

Yes they were. That's why they put wording restricting the government from honoring any one religion IN THE VERY FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

And why wouldn't Christian Founders want that first and foremost?

LOki

07-12-2007, 12:03 PM

No reason to repeat myself.I knew you'd tuck tail.

musicman

07-12-2007, 12:20 PM

You sumbit this as if I have disputed it.

I already said ALL OF THEM accepts the truth of man's imperfection. Every repeated instance of you asking for these examples is a denial that I have already done so.

Then I'm putting you all in: demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's flawless perfection, because that's what you must do to demostrate the UNIQUE status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Call or fold

I call; read 'em and weep. I don't care if you're holding 10-J-Q-K-A. You can't top my cards; I'm holding T-R-U-T-H.

At first I thought you were merely being obstinate; now I see that you just don't understand. Or won't. What form would a government take, that operates from the acceptance of man's irretrievably fallen and flawed nature? It would be an entity which is understood, then, to be imperfect ITSELF - being the CREATION of said flawed man. Rights are not granted by such an entity; the power over the conduct of everyday life is not controlled by such an entity; the (strictly limited) power such an entity enjoys is GRANTED by the governed; such an entity SERVES AT THE PLEASURE of the governed. Show me the like of the U.S. Constitution anywhere else in human history, since you have failed to do so up until now.

"...the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny,..." is still question begging. That still makes it question begging nonsense.

Then, I have failed to understand your terminology. Sorry.

Being adversarial to central governement is NOT UNIQUE to the US government. Relative to many of the other governments with an adversarial approach to central government, the US approach is certainly "watered down". You need everyone to ignore the existence of every government in human history with an adversarial approach to central government, so that your assertion that "...U.S. Constitution's strict, almost adversarial approach to central government is unique in human history" can be accepted as valid--it's not going to happen.

Again, I assumed here that you were merely being obstinate. I guess not. Listen to me: In order for your assertion to make any sense whatever, we need to be talking about a system which accepts the existence of a central government to begin with. If we don't treat like cases alike, we'll just beat our keyboards to death for no good purpose. Stay in the game, man; comparing apples and carburetors is kind of pointless.

Yet I'm not the one denying that "the Gospel" asserts something other than Jesus' threat to eternally damn anyone who does not submit to His will.

I think we've already established your level of commitment to denying what is clearly asserted in the Bible.

Take for example every instance where Christians assert that embracing Christ makes them better people, and that the strict, universal, and inerrant following of the teachings of Christ would put an end to all problems.

It occurs to me that I'm debating Christian principle as it applies to human governance with someone who understands very little of humans or governance - and nothing at all of Christianity, save for his fear and loathing of it.

WHERE IS THE COERCION, LOki? When do these beliefs take on the power of human governance?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the idea that this country was founded on Christian principle is such a dreadful prospect for you. Your rights couldn't be any safer - since they derive from no man, and no man's governmental creation. They are YOURS - by virtue of the fact that you draw air - whether you believe in God or not. What could be a better premise from which to start?

As to a "Christian theocracy", it couldn't happen. Christian principle itself forbids it. Subtract free will, and you no longer have Christianity. Restore it, and you no longer have a theocracy.

You have not abandoned your question begging, you deny reason and rationality in your discourse, and now you project your dislike for where reason and rationality are taking you, upon me.

I'm quite serene, LOki. How are you?

glockmail

07-12-2007, 01:42 PM

I knew you'd tuck tail. If you call hitting it out of the park tucking tail, then yes. :pee:

GW in Ohio

07-12-2007, 02:16 PM

If you call hitting it out of the park tucking tail, then yes. :pee:

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this country was founded as a Christian nation, I would ask the question:

Is the US a Christian nation today?

I would say we have much more religious diversity today than we did in the 17th century. We have Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and everything in between today. And atheism and agnosticism are much more acceptable today than they were back then.

Plus, I would say that Christianity has less of a hold on the general populace today. What would you say the percentage of Americans who attend church regularly is?

Hagbard Celine

07-12-2007, 02:36 PM

And why wouldn't Christian Founders want that first and foremost?

I think you don't understand my post. I certainly don't understand yours. I have no idea what "that" is. So here's a rewording of the post you responded to. The existence of the first amendment proves that this nation's federal government was founded as a secular institution. If the founders wanted the US to be "founded on Christianity" as some of you have claimed, they would have made Christianity the national religion and I think something that important they would have mentioned in the Constitution. Since "Christianity" isn't mentioned anywhere in there but an amendment restricting the government from respecting any one religion over another is, it's pretty obvious that the founders, as well as the state representatives who ratified the Constitution, meant for this nation's government to be secular. They knew what would happen if the state meddled in religion. They'd seen it in the history of Great Britain. They wanted to avoid those mistakes as well as allowing for the free exercise of all religions in the nation they were creating.

musicman

07-12-2007, 03:32 PM

The existence of the first amendment proves that this nation's federal government was founded as a secular institution.

My Webster's has secularism as "indifference to or exclusion of religion". So, I'd say that you're not quite correct, since Amendment I neither instructs central government to be indifferent to nor to exclude religion. Rather, it is directed, in no uncertain terms, to butt out of the matter entirely - and there's a difference. "Our federal government is instructed to be secular" is not accurate; "Our religion is none of our federal government's business" is.

theHawk

07-12-2007, 04:03 PM

I think you don't understand my post. I certainly don't understand yours. I have no idea what "that" is. So here's a rewording of the post you responded to. The existence of the first amendment proves that this nation's federal government was founded as a secular institution. If the founders wanted the US to be "founded on Christianity" as some of you have claimed, they would have made Christianity the national religion and I think something that important they would have mentioned in the Constitution. Since "Christianity" isn't mentioned anywhere in there but an amendment restricting the government from respecting any one religion over another is, it's pretty obvious that the founders, as well as the state representatives who ratified the Constitution, meant for this nation's government to be secular. They knew what would happen if the state meddled in religion. They'd seen it in the history of Great Britain. They wanted to avoid those mistakes as well as allowing for the free exercise of all religions in the nation they were creating.

Well, MusicMan already responded, but I agree I think we may have different definitions of the word "secular." Secular means to exclude god or any organized religion, possibly meaning to go so far as outlawing it. Since religion is nothing more than a set of values and beliefs, secularism amounts to nothing more than a form of thought control. Thats the last thing our founding fathers wanted.

Missileman

07-12-2007, 04:37 PM

Well, MusicMan already responded, but I agree I think we may have different definitions of the word "secular." Secular means to exclude god or any organized religion, possibly meaning to go so far as outlawing it. Since religion is nothing more than a set of values and beliefs, secularism amounts to nothing more than a form of thought control. Thats the last thing our founding fathers wanted.

My definition of secular is simply, "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal". As our Constitution doesn't have any provisions that are spiritual in nature, I'd call it secular.

musicman

07-12-2007, 06:28 PM

My definition of secular is simply, "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal". As our Constitution doesn't have any provisions that are spiritual in nature, I'd call it secular.

What does yours say about the term, "secularism", though, MM? Since it involves one of the foundational tenets of our way of life, I certainly think it's a definition worth splitting hairs over.

Like theHawk, I worry that defining our central government as "secular" would invite it to actively promote the worldview, "secularism" - and the First Amendment does no such thing. It expressly tells central government to butt out. If one's explanation for that which exists outside the self - that which is transcendent - one's RELIGION, if you will - were put in terms of a poll, the federal government must check the box marked, "No Opinion".

One of our posters (don't know if it was you) made the point that our founding fathers were smart men, and if they had wanted to designate America a Christian nation, they would have said so plainly in the Constitution. I cannot argue with that. But, the sword cuts both ways; the same applies to secularism.

Missileman

07-12-2007, 06:43 PM

What does yours say about the term, "secularism", though, MM? Since it involves one of the foundational tenets of our way of life, I certainly think it's a definition worth splitting hairs over.

Like theHawk, I worry that defining our central government as "secular" would invite it to actively promote the worldview, "secularism" - and the First Amendment does no such thing. It expressly tells central government to butt out. If one's explanation for that which exists outside the self - that which is transcendent - one's RELIGION, if you will - were put in terms of a poll, the federal government must check the box marked, "No Opinion".

One of our posters (don't know if it was you) made the point that our founding fathers were smart men, and if they had wanted to designate America a Christian nation, they would have said so plainly in the Constitution. I cannot argue with that. But, the sword cuts both ways; the same applies to secularism.

Secularism: "the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element."

Sounds reasonable to me. That there are extremists who call themselves secularists doesn't make the concept a bad one.

musicman

07-12-2007, 06:49 PM

Secularism: "the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element."

Ah, but now we have government having an opinion on the matter of religion. Religion is none of the federal government's business - not religion's presence, absence, or form. The First Amendment is clear.

Kathianne

07-12-2007, 06:51 PM

musicman

07-12-2007, 06:53 PM

Very good. I tried to rep...

It's frustrating, isn't it? Just had the same thing happen with one of your posts. 'Tis the thought that counts - thank you!

Missileman

07-12-2007, 07:07 PM

Ah, but now we have government having an opinion on the matter of religion. Religion is none of the federal government's business - not religion's presence, absence, or form. The First Amendment is clear.

The First Amendment says nothing about our government being prohibited from keeping religion out of public education and civil policy as you suggest. Extremists claiming that doing so is infringing on their free exercise doesn't make this true either.

musicman

07-12-2007, 07:47 PM

The First Amendment says nothing about our government being prohibited from keeping religion out of public education and civil policy as you suggest.

Why would it? Between I and X, I'd say the importance of federal opinion on the matters of religion, education, AND civil policy are rendered equally irrelevant. I'm sure our founders considered the question settled, and would be horrified at the scope of today's federal government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We have strayed far, MM - to our detriment. Call me a cockeyed extremist, I guess...

Missileman

07-12-2007, 08:16 PM

Why would it? Between I and X, I'd say the importance of federal opinion on the matters of religion, education, AND civil policy are rendered equally irrelevant. I'm sure our founders considered the question settled, and would be horrified at the scope of today's federal government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We have strayed far, MM - to our detriment. Call me a cockeyed extremist, I guess...

So you feel that religion is untouchable by the government. When a Satanist knocks on your door in the middle of the night to drag you away as a human sacrifice or your friendly neighborhood Imam sends his boys over to lop off your noggin for being an infidel, remember this is your position. :poke:

glockmail

07-12-2007, 08:51 PM

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this country was founded as a Christian nation, I would ask the question:

Is the US a Christian nation today?

I would say we have much more religious diversity today than we did in the 17th century. We have Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and everything in between today. And atheism and agnosticism are much more acceptable today than they were back then.

Plus, I would say that Christianity has less of a hold on the general populace today. What would you say the percentage of Americans who attend church regularly is?

I would say that we are a Christian Nation. what other religion would be so tolerant of other religions?

Michael Medved once said that as a Jew, he is glad that he lives in a Christain Nation.

glockmail

07-12-2007, 08:59 PM

I think you don't understand my post. I certainly don't understand yours. I have no idea what "that" is. So here's a rewording of the post you responded to. The existence of the first amendment proves that this nation's federal government was founded as a secular institution. If the founders wanted the US to be "founded on Christianity" as some of you have claimed, they would have made Christianity the national religion and I think something that important they would have mentioned in the Constitution. Since "Christianity" isn't mentioned anywhere in there but an amendment restricting the government from respecting any one religion over another is, it's pretty obvious that the founders, as well as the state representatives who ratified the Constitution, meant for this nation's government to be secular. They knew what would happen if the state meddled in religion. They'd seen it in the history of Great Britain. They wanted to avoid those mistakes as well as allowing for the free exercise of all religions in the nation they were creating. I understood your post perfectly. The Founders saw that The Church of England had bastardized Christianity by making it the official government religion, thereby forcing all to be beholden to it. In order to be a true Christian you must have the freedom to choose it.

musicman

07-12-2007, 11:27 PM

So you feel that religion is untouchable by the government. When a Satanist knocks on your door in the middle of the night to drag you away as a human sacrifice or your friendly neighborhood Imam sends his boys over to lop off your noggin for being an infidel, remember this is your position. :poke:

They'd be guilty of breaches of the peace at that point. My local sheriff is a badass; he'd fix their little wagons for them.:tank:

LOki

07-13-2007, 06:19 PM

Here are some quotes from the founding fathers.

This should come with a warning though, these quotes may burn liberal eyes right out of their sockets.Mr. Hawk, Thank you for being the first proponent for the mingling of religion and government to bring actual evidence (rather than simply demanding your assertions to be accepted as true simply because you hold them to be true) in support of the notion that the Founders were in agreement with said postion. This is a refreshing change of pace from those who persistently assert their unsupported opininon as fact and then claim they have "proved" their case.

John Adams:
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."The "general principles of Christianity", not those particular to Christianity.<blockquote>John Adams:
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."</blockquote>These "general principles" are rational principles that rational men of every denomination claim as theirs.<blockquote>John Adams:
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."</blockquote>
John Adams:
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by CongressThis quote expresses a private opinion, perhaps, and certainly is not any kind of wish to force his notions of "God Almighty" upon others through the coercive appurtenances of government. This quote in no way demands a government support for any particular religion.<blockquote>John Adams:
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"</blockquote>
John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 While conceding a role for morality and religion in curbing human passions, this quote in no way demands a government support for any particular religion.

John Adams:
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson This quote in no way demands a government support for any particular religion, nor does it eststablish an opinion in Adams that Christian philosophy is a guiding principle for this country.<blockquote>John Adams:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"</blockquote>
John Quincy Adams:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

John Quincy Adams:
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61 <blockquote>John Quincy Adams:
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws."</blockquote>
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speechThough expressing gratitude for God's blessing in the formation of this nation, it none the less is no endoresemnt of for founding this nation on any religion.<blockquote>Benjamin Franklin:
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."</blockquote>Theocrats, of course, disagree and demand such support.

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]<blockquote>Benjamin Franklin:
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."</blockquote>
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." <blockquote>Benjamin Franklin:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."</blockquote>
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."<blockquote>Benjamin Franklin:
"...Some books against Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."</blockquote>Deists enjoy a deal of latitude in what they can believe.

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"This expression of his Christianity, and the Chrisitanity of those he addressed is not an endorsement of establishing Chistianity as a foundation for the US Government...in 1775, these sentinments had little to do with the United States of America. Yet consider his message to God's sovereign representative to the most powerful Christian nation on the planet at the time:<blockquote>John Hancock:
"There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!"</blockquote>After you're done considering how he felt toward the leader of country whose government was founded upon the princples of religion, consider his sentiments about the proper foundations of government:<blockquote>John Hancock:
"Some boast of being friends to government; I am a friend to righteous government, to a government founded upon the principles of reason and justice; but I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny."</blockquote>
Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
"This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
This, of course is not an endorsement of mingling religion and government.

Patrick Henry:
“<a href="http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/PHenry.html#msquo">It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.</a> For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]This quote cannot be found in any of Patrick Henry's writings or recorded sayings. It is most likely a <a href="http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9705/quotes.html">fabrication of David Barton's mind</a>; but even if it's not, and it's attribution is correct, in 1765 "this nation" that is being discussed could not possibly have been the United States of America.

Patrick Henry:
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”This is not an endorsement of mingling religion and government either.

None of my commetary to the above should be construed to mean that I am suggesting Patrick Henry did not have theocratic notions regarding this nation--his arguments with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson attest to his desire to establish this nation as a Christian nation. I will suggest, however, that if this nation was founded as a Christian nation, Patrick Henry would have been one of the signatories to the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson:
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man."

Thomas Jefferson:
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus."

Thomas Jefferson:
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."I like the Jesus that Thomas Jefferson believed in. Thomas Jefferson was my kind of Christian. But was Thomas Jefferson's Jesus your Jesus? Was Thomas Jefferson your kind of Christian?<blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."</blockquote>Probably not. Good thing for you, that he advocated for the separation of church and state so that his notions of who Jesus is did not become law.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.] This has nothing at all to do with church and state, and everything to do with the reason that slavery violates "...these liberties [which] are a gift from God".

Samuel Johnston:
"It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen's candor to judge what probability there is of the people's choosing men of different sentiments from themselves."
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]This just seems to assert that Christians are simply bigots, and that since the majority are these bigoted Christians, they are not likely to judge people by their good conduct and practice of virtue. The only hope for decent folks is that the Christian bigots set aside their religion. It's a thoroughly insulting indictment upon the notion of a Christian nation, and illustrative of exactly why minority religions must be protected from a marriage between the religion held by the majority and a democraticly elected government.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”Do you suppose Paine meant that the Author of all things is Christ?<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"What is it the Bible teaches us? — raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."</blockquote>
Thomas Paine:
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810"I can only hope that in suggesting Thomas Paine thought religion should be taught in public schools, you're endorsing teaching Thomas Paine's notions of Bible-based religion.<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."</blockquote>If you're really interested in establishing that Thomas Paine thought religion belonged in government, you should find quotes asserting so.<blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Paine:
"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."</blockquote>
The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.” This cannot be verified in any documentation I can find. James madison proposed the Virginia Plan to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but nowhere is Isaiah 33:22 mentioned. The only source I can can track this back to is David Barton, whose lack of credibility is well established.<blockquote>James Madison:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</blockquote>

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Yup, those founding fathers sure were secularists weren't they!!!Yep, they sure were:<blockquote>James Madison:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."</blockquote><blockquote>Patrick Henry:
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."</blockquote><blockquote>John Adams:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</blockquote><blockquote>John Adams:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</blockquote>

nevadamedic

07-13-2007, 06:29 PM

MusicMan where are you from?

glockmail

07-13-2007, 09:30 PM

Mr. Hawk, .....

Is anyone impressed by the length of these posts? No, I didn't think so. :pee:

:laugh2::laugh2:

Missileman

07-13-2007, 09:54 PM

Is anyone impressed by the length of these posts? No, I didn't think so. :pee:

:laugh2::laugh2:

Those of us who can actually read rather enjoy them. :poke:

glockmail

07-13-2007, 10:08 PM

Those of us who can actually read rather enjoy them. :poke: Knock yourself out, man. I find him to be a pompous wind bag. :pee:

nevadamedic

07-14-2007, 12:28 AM

Is anyone impressed by the length of these posts? No, I didn't think so. :pee:

:laugh2::laugh2:

:laugh2:

musicman

07-14-2007, 04:56 AM

MusicMan where are you from?

I'm from the Buckeye State, NM - along with Gaffer and Krisy (both friends of mine), and GW in Ohio - whom I've never met. I work in GW's neck of the woods (Columbus, I believe) from time to time, though; in fact, I'm just now dragging my sleepy carcass home from there.

I wonder if we have any more Ohioans on the board.

Good night, all!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

Psychoblues

07-14-2007, 05:04 AM

Good Christians should have been asllep in their beds hours ago.

I'm from the Buckeye State, NM - along with Gaffer and Krisy (both friends of mine), and GW in Ohio - whom I've never met. I work in GW's neck of the woods (Columbus, I believe) from time to time, though; in fact, I'm just now dragging my sleepy carcass home from there.

I wonder if we have any more Ohioans on the board.

Good night, all!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

The only real Ohoians I know are native Americans. Are you a native?

musicman

07-14-2007, 12:47 PM

Although it wasn't addressed directly to me, I'd like to thank LOki for his recent, ponderous post. He has managed - with profuse citation, yet - to underline two of the most important points I've been trying to make - to wit:

Our founders were by no means proponents for the mingling of religion and government; nor am I; nor is any enemy of tyranny.

Man had managed to screw up Christian principle as it applies to human governance for 1500 years, before his hard-won, enlightened understanding of it culminated in the nearest thing to governmental perfection we'll ever see: the U.S. Constitution.

Kathianne

07-14-2007, 12:53 PM

LOki

07-15-2007, 11:49 AM

I call; read 'em and weep. I don't care if you're holding 10-J-Q-K-A. You can't top my cards; I'm holding T-R-U-T-H.How precious.

At first I thought you were merely being obstinate; now I see that you just don't understand. Or won't. What form would a government take, that operates from the acceptance of man's irretrievably fallen and flawed nature? It would be an entity which is understood, then, to be imperfect ITSELF - being the CREATION of said flawed man. Rights are not granted by such an entity; the power over the conduct of everyday life is not controlled by such an entity; the (strictly limited) power such an entity enjoys is GRANTED by the governed; such an entity SERVES AT THE PLEASURE of the governed. Show me the like of the U.S. Constitution anywhere else in human history, since you have failed to do so up until now.How many times are you going to refine your request, just so you can continue to deny that I have met it? EVERY government ever has proceeded from an acceptance of man's imperfection.

Also, FYI, the power to govern at the consent of the governed has NEVER been a Christian principle--the Christian principle of governance derives from the natural authority of Jesus, and not the governed--we didn't get to elect Jesus, and the authority to govern comes not from us, but rather (for a Christianity based government at least) Jesus; and rights (in fact everything) are indeed conferred by exactly that entity, i.e. Jesus Christ.

BTW: "irretrievably 'fallen'" is clearly "question begging". "Flawed nature" is also, but I assume I understand your meaning by taking it as 'man is not perfectly aware of all conditions at all times', thus I have been accepting it as a valid premise.

Then, I have failed to understand your terminology. Sorry.<a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html">Begging The Question:</a> The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Again, I assumed here that you were merely being obstinate. I guess not. Listen to me: In order for your assertion to make any sense whatever, we need to be talking about a system which accepts the existence of a central government to begin with. If we don't treat like cases alike, we'll just beat our keyboards to death for no good purpose. Stay in the game, man; comparing apples and carburetors is kind of pointless.Please continue to refine your criteria, after I have met your request, so you can continure to accuse me of being obstinent in not doing so. I presume you'll do so once again after I offer you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic#The_Structure_of_Republican_Rome">The Roman Repupublic which existed from the 6th century BC to the 1st century BC</a>. It offers you everything you now ask for: an acceptance of man's flawed nature, an acceptance of central government based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control, with powers divided amongst various branches. And as a bonus, it not only preceeds the United States of America by 1800 years, but it also preceeds formal Chrisitianity by 400 years.

Can we finish with this now? There is nothing unique to Christianity in the manner in which the United States is Governed. Nothing.

It occurs to me that I'm debating Christian principle as it applies to human governance with someone who understands very little of humans or governance - and nothing at all of Christianity, save for his fear and loathing of it.:fu:

WHERE IS THE COERCION, LOki? When do these beliefs take on the power of human governance?Talk about being deliberately obtuse. If you're asking me where the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion">COERCION</a> is in the Bible, I'm going to ask you to read it, and then explain to me how the Bible asserts something other than Jesus' threat to eternally damn anyone who does not submit to His will, and how that threat cannot be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion">COERCION</a>.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the idea that this country was founded on Christian principle is such a dreadful prospect for you. Your rights couldn't be any safer - since they derive from no man, and no man's governmental creation. They are YOURS - by virtue of the fact that you draw air - whether you believe in God or not. What could be a better premise from which to start?I don't dread it any more than I dread the idea that the moon is made of cheese. I am asserting that in the same manner that the evidence demonstrates that the moon is not made of cheese, the US Consitution is not founded on Christian principles. You can argue that the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up moon rock are the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons that make up cheese, and that therefore the moon is made of cheese--you'd still be wrong, and you'd still be wrong asserting that the US Constitution was founded on Christian principles. And the better premises from which to start are the actual premises, which were rational premises.

As to a "Christian theocracy", it couldn't happen. Christian principle itself forbids it. Subtract free will, and you no longer have Christianity. Restore it, and you no longer have a theocracy. <a href="http://www.ifilm.com/video/2874386">A Christian principle</a> of governance demands theocracy. There's no free-will in Christianity because there can be no free-will if there's predestination, and there can be no free-will under coercion. Subtract free-will and submit yourself to the whims of Christian theocrats, and you'll get your Christian theocracy.

I'm quite serene, LOki. How are you?I'm fine. Yet, I didn't ask if you were serene or not, and you have still not abandoned your question begging, you deny reason and rationality in your discourse, you project your dislike of where reason and rationality take you, upon me, and now you engage in non-sequitur. Why is that?

LOki

07-15-2007, 11:52 AM

If you call hitting it out of the park tucking tail, then yes. :pee:I call your frantic, and continued retreat into your delusional denial tucking tail. :bye:

LOki

07-15-2007, 12:09 PM

Although it wasn't addressed directly to me, I'd like to thank LOki for his recent, ponderous post. He has managed - with profuse citation, yet - to underline two of the most important points I've been trying to make - to wit:

Our founders were by no means proponents for the mingling of religion and government; nor am I; nor is any enemy of tyranny.:thumb:

Man had managed to screw up Christian principle as it applies to human governance for 1500 years, before his hard-won, enlightened understanding of it culminated in the nearest thing to governmental perfection we'll ever see: the U.S. Constitution. This degree of governmental perfection is derived of the rational principles held by our founders rather than any of those principles they may have held that were uniquely Christian.

glockmail

07-15-2007, 12:34 PM

I call your frantic, and continued retreat into your delusional denial tucking tail. :bye:
:laugh2: Call it what it pleases you. I call your false claims shallow and your quick exit "tucking tail".

LOki

07-15-2007, 12:49 PM

:laugh2: Call it what it pleases you. I call your false claims shallow and your quick exit "tucking tail".My claim is not false, the record is clear, and even if it's shallow, it's still valid. You had no argument, you still have no argument, all you have is your refuge in your denial of reality.

glockmail

07-15-2007, 01:35 PM

My claim is not false, the record is clear, and even if it's shallow, it's still valid. You had no argument, you still have no argument, all you have is your refuge in your denial of reality. As you are the one flaming and insulting, the record is clear that your argument has been in the toilet for some time now.

LOki

07-15-2007, 01:41 PM

As you are the one flaming and insulting,...Did exposing your outer retard hurt the feelings of your inner retard? I'm sorry.

...the record is clear that your argument has been in the toilet for some time now.Can you run any farther or faster into this delusion of yours?

Psychoblues

07-16-2007, 01:14 AM

What "Christian" origins?

Where did I say it was? I'm simply saying that America should fully embrace its Christian origins and revisit that which made it great.

I don't think only Christians made this country great. I think Americans of a very great and very diverse religious, racial and political ideology made this country GREAT. It's assholes like you that are trying to screw things up for yourself as well as the rest of us. Dig it?

theHawk

07-16-2007, 11:10 AM

Yep, they sure were:<blockquote>James Madison:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree."</blockquote><blockquote>James Madison:
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."</blockquote><blockquote>Thomas Jefferson:
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."</blockquote><blockquote>Patrick Henry:
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."</blockquote><blockquote>John Adams:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</blockquote><blockquote>John Adams:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</blockquote>

Loki, there is no doubt that the founding fathers wanted church and government to be separate and neither in charge of the other. That does not mean that 'We the People' cannot pass laws that reflect our values and morals, which is what liberals these days are claiming is the merging of "church and state." No one has ever talked about passing laws that tell people what to believe in. Laws are passed to usually restrict people's actions, based on what the majority believe is moral and what they believe is wrong. For example, the vast majority of people believe its wrong to commit murder. Whether or not this belief came from the people's religious upbringing or what their church dictates to them is irrelivant. If the vast majority share that comman value then it will probably be made law.

Today, the main issues that people are pushing to become law is abortion and gay marriage. Your typical left side looneys will argue that its "church" intruding in on everyone else. What any church's opinion is on the issues should be irrelivant, the point is alot of people have strong feelings on both sides of the issues, and it should be settled in a democratic manner. In the case of abortion, that option has largely been robbed of us becuse of Roe v Wade. As a strict believer in the constitution I believe Roe v Wade should be overturned, which would allow the states to handle the issue themselves. And the reality would be that abortion would probably remain unchanged, it would be tough or near impossible to get an abortion in the more conservative areas of the country, and abortion on demand would be available in the more liberal areas. In any case, they would be laws restricting people's action, not their beliefs, and they would be laws created by the people.
Gay marriage recognition laws, on the other hand, are something that is being pushed onto the people, in order to force them into changing their beliefs. Forcing the taxpayers to recognize something they haven't since the Constitution itself became law. The so called Gay marriage bans, aren't actually banning the religious ceremony (the act) of two gays getting married. They simply state that 'We the People' do not recognize this as a real marriage. In a common sense world these types of laws wouldn't be necessary, but the level of absurdity that liberalism these days has reached in attempting to make others change their beliefs in what is acceptable is compelling some to fight back.

GW in Ohio

07-16-2007, 11:19 AM

Kathianne

07-16-2007, 11:24 AM

glockmail

07-16-2007, 12:33 PM

Did exposing your outer retard hurt the feelings of your inner retard? I'm sorry.

Can you run any farther or faster into this delusion of yours?
You are as shallow in your apologies as you are in your arguments.

glockmail

07-16-2007, 12:34 PM

I've asked this before....I'll ask it again.....

Regardless of whether this country was founded as a Christian nation, is it a Christian nation now?...

First we must agree how it was founded.

theHawk

07-16-2007, 01:36 PM

I've asked this before....I'll ask it again.....

Regardless of whether this country was founded as a Christian nation, is it a Christian nation now?

I would say it is not, for several reasons:

We have a very strong tradition of separation of church and state that has been defined and re-defined over 2 1/2 centuries. It's part of our culture now.
There is way more religious diversity now than there was when this nation was founded. We have Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, New Age followers and a variety of other religions that were not present at the birth of America. Moreover, it is way more acceptable now to be a professed atheist or agnostic.
Churches play a much less important role in people's lives today than in past years. My impression is that the average American family does not attend church regularly.

America was founded as a Christian nation, just not a theocratic government. As a nation, it was Christian. But the term nation does not equate to government. Government is simply the institution that governs the nation, by authority given to it by the people. The nation is the collective of peoples, all with their own beliefs.

I'd say we are still a "Christian" nation, but that margin is wearing thin because of the facts you point out. The main problem today is that liberals claim "interference" when certain laws they don't like are passed or attempted to be passed. Its important to keep these secularists out of office because it is they who would deny or push for certain laws based on their belief that any law passed that reflects morals of religious people is somehow in violation of "separate of church and state." Its flatly absurd to think that anyone and everyone with a religious upbringing should just shut up and color and not participate in our Republic.

GW in Ohio

07-16-2007, 02:25 PM

First we must agree how it was founded.

Hey, glockie.....

Congratulations. You've surpassed OCA; you now have the most repulsive icon in the forum.

And there seems to be a correlation between having a repulsive icon and expressing repulsive sentiments.

I'd imagine you're real proud of yourself........

OCA

07-16-2007, 02:27 PM

Can anybody prove that seperation of church and state, in the context of removing religion from public schools, has been a success?

No, but give er a try.

OCA

07-16-2007, 02:29 PM

Hey, glockie.....

Congratulations. You've surpassed OCA; you now have the most repulsive icon in the forum.

And there seems to be a correlation between having a repulsive icon and expressing repulsive sentiments.

I'd imagine you're real proud of yourself........

Typical lib, can't argue the topic so move onto avatars(of which mine rocks).

Why we don't lock you people up is beyond me, the damage that the liberal mindset has done to America is mind boggling.

GW in Ohio

07-16-2007, 02:42 PM

Typical lib, can't argue the topic so move onto avatars(of which mine rocks).

Why we don't lock you people up is beyond me, the damage that the liberal mindset has done to America is mind boggling.

Didn't mean to slight you, OCA.

Your icon still looks like a dogshit sandwich with sour cream on top.

Abbey Marie

07-16-2007, 02:46 PM

Hey, glockie.....

Congratulations. You've surpassed OCA; you now have the most repulsive icon in the forum.

And there seems to be a correlation between having a repulsive icon and expressing repulsive sentiments.

I'd imagine you're real proud of yourself........

You find Hillary repulsive too? We agree on something. :coffee:

OCA

07-16-2007, 03:45 PM

Didn't mean to slight you, OCA.

Your icon still looks like a dogshit sandwich with sour cream on top.

Kind of like your political views resemble pubes on the edge of a shitter and about as well though out as the piss drips down the front of the pisser at the public park.

Abbey Marie

07-16-2007, 03:48 PM

Kind of like your political views resemble pubes on the edge of a shitter and about as well though out as the piss drips down the front of the pisser at the public park.

Lordy, I think I just lost my appetite for dinner!

glockmail

07-16-2007, 04:15 PM

Hey, glockie.....

Congratulations. You've surpassed OCA; you now have the most repulsive icon in the forum.

And there seems to be a correlation between having a repulsive icon and expressing repulsive sentiments.

I'd imagine you're real proud of yourself........

You mean avatar?

It happens to be your hero. All I did to the picture was draw on a mustache. :laugh2:

Why? Does it remind you of a historical figure? :poke:

musicman

07-17-2007, 02:43 PM

How many times are you going to refine your request, just so you can continue to deny that I have met it?

Precisely as many times as you fail to meet it, and make refinement necessary with your literalist misdirection and deliberate obtuseness. Like this:

EVERY government ever has proceeded from an acceptance of man's imperfection.

Very cute. If man were perfect, he wouldn't need government to begin with, eh? So very neat and tidy. But, you conveniently ignore my point that a system which proceeds from the assumption of man's irreparably flawed nature would treat his creation - government - accordingly. The U.S. Constitution - uniquely in all of human history - does just this. It is ASSUMED and ACCEPTED that government will - MUST - tend toward tyranny; man's flawed nature demands it. Show me the like of our system anywhere in human history, since you haven't done it yet - certainly not with your example of the class-based Roman Republic.

<a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html">Begging The Question:</a> The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me; it is a term I was unfamiliar with. I'd have thought that one shade or another of "false conclusion" would have sufficed - but I accept "begging the question" as a term with its own very specific meaning. You have done a good deed.

You'll have undoubtedly heard, though, the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished". It may very well apply here. Armed with this fresh knowledge, I can now see that you have provided working examples of "question begging" with your own posts - here:

Can we finish with this now? There is nothing unique to Christianity in the manner in which the United States is Governed. Nothing.

...and, here:

BTW: "irretrievably 'fallen'" is clearly "question begging".

...since your desperate need to exclude Christianity from the equation of this nation's founding asks us to accept the absurd notion that European Christians - in the very eye of the evolving Protestant Reformation - constructed a governmental system which was not only UTTERLY UNINFORMED by Christian principle, but HEROICALLY DETERMINED TO AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS. You want us to concede that man arrived - through pure reason and rationality - without a fleeting mental reference to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden - at the historically unique conclusion that the governments of man are not to be trusted - despite the evidence of the whole of human history that mere reason and rationality have never led him there.

Now - as to your understanding of Christian principle - or, much of anything else to do with Christianity, for that matter - I submit that your knowledge is nil. I have pointed this out , twice, and received similar replies both times:

:fu:

Fine; I seem to have hit a nerve. I'll say nothing else on the matter in this post. Instead, I'll close by allowing you to convict yourself by your own hand:

Also, FYI, the power to govern at the consent of the governed has NEVER been a Christian principle--the Christian principle of governance derives from the natural authority of Jesus, and not the governed--we didn't get to elect Jesus, and the authority to govern comes not from us, but rather (for a Christianity based government at least) Jesus; and rights (in fact everything) are indeed conferred by exactly that entity, i.e. Jesus Christ.

Talk about being deliberately obtuse. If you're asking me where the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion">COERCION</a> is in the Bible, I'm going to ask you to read it, and then explain to me how the Bible asserts something other than Jesus' threat to eternally damn anyone who does not submit to His will, and how that threat cannot be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion">COERCION</a>.

<a href="http://www.ifilm.com/video/2874386">A Christian principle</a> of governance demands theocracy. There's no free-will in Christianity because there can be no free-will if there's predestination, and there can be no free-will under coercion. Subtract free-will and submit yourself to the whims of Christian theocrats, and you'll get your Christian theocracy.

musicman

07-17-2007, 04:42 PM

Q: Since you so adamantly insist that there is nothing unique to Christianity in the manner in which the U.S. is governed, you must understand Christianity fairly well. Would you mind outlining, for us, Christian principle as you understand it?

A: I don't really understand much about it at all - but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Q: So, you don't actually have a leg to stand on, do you?

A::fu:

LOki

07-18-2007, 08:03 AM

Precisely as many times as you fail to meet it [FYI: this bullshit rhetorical ploy is known as "moving the goal posts"], and make refinement necessary with your literalist misdirection and deliberate obtuseness."Literalist" is commonly by those who refuse to accept the patently logical, and prima facie consequences of their assertions. "Obtuse" is recognizing a point that fully contradicts one's assertion, and then <a href="http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/invincible_ignorance.asp">deliberately pretend</a> that such a point does not exist--Like this:
Very cute. If man were perfect, he wouldn't need government to begin with, eh? So very neat and tidy.Your attempt to diminish the point by characteizing it as "cute" and "So very neat and tidy", is intellecually dishonest, and fails in it's purpose due to it's lack of argumentative merit.

But, you conveniently ignore my point that a system which proceeds from the assumption of man's irreparably flawed nature would treat his creation - government - accordingly.This never happened. What also never happened was you demonstrating that all other governments proceeding from a principle of man's perfection, or all other governments have proceeded as if the governemnt was perfect--demonstrtation of one of these is required to validate your "uniqueness" assertion. Talk about convenient ignorance.

The U.S. Constitution - uniquely in all of human history - does just this.You conveniently fail to present facts to demonstrate this, or facts that refute the counters I have offered--<a href="http://www.search.com/reference/Ad_nauseam?redir=1">ad nauseam</a>.

It is ASSUMED and ACCEPTED that government will - MUST - tend toward tyranny; man's flawed nature demands it. Show me the like of our system anywhere in human history, since you haven't done it yet - certainly not with your example of the class-based Roman Republic.My example certainly does, your unsupported denial does not refute it.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me; it is a term I was unfamiliar with. I'd have thought that one shade or another of "false conclusion" would have sufficed - but I accept "begging the question" as a term with its own very specific meaning. You have done a good deed.Considering your patent ingnorance of all the logical fallacies you enjoy engaging in, I'm sure this is not the last good deed I'll feel compelled to do.

You'll have undoubtedly heard, though, the saying, "No good deed goes unpunished". It may very well apply here. Armed with this fresh knowledge, I can now see that you have provided working examples of "question begging" with your own posts - here:If your misapplication of "this fresh knowledge" is the punishment you speak of, then "No good deed goes unpunished" certainly applies. Taken out of the context that supports the argument it makes, this:<blockquote>Originally Posted by LOki
"Can we finish with this now? There is nothing unique to Christianity in the manner in which the United States is Governed. Nothing."</blockquote>..appear to be question begging. It's not, because it is the approprite conclusion drawn from the evidence provided that refutes your argument. Your unsupported dismissal of the evidence provided is not a counter refutation--it's just denial. And intellectually <a href="http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm">slothful denial</a> at that.

...since your desperate need to exclude Christianity from the equation of this nation's founding asks us to accept the absurd notion that European Christians - in the very eye of the evolving Protestant Reformation - constructed a governmental system which was not only UTTERLY UNINFORMED by Christian principle, but HEROICALLY DETERMINED TO AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS. You want us to concede that man arrived - through pure reason and rationality - without a fleeting mental reference to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden - at the historically unique conclusion that the governments of man are not to be trusted - despite the evidence of the whole of human history that mere reason and rationality have never led him there.This is what a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html">Straw-Man</a> attack is.<blockquote>"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."</blockquote>I assert that none of the principles this country is founded upon are uniquely Christian principles, or principles neccesarily derived from Christianity. Acceptance of man's imperfection is not one of them; government at the consent of the governed is not one of them, democracy is not one of them; separation of powers is not one of them; freedom of religion is not one of them;

BTW: "irretrievably 'fallen'" is still clearly "question begging". You demand that I concede to you the Judaeo-Christian notion that man is "fallen" from grace so you can prove your "Christian principles" assertion.
Now - as to your understanding of Christian principle - or, much of anything else to do with Christianity, for that matter - I submit that your knowledge is nil. I have pointed this out , twice, and received similar replies both times:You offer nothing but this denial as refutation. For as long as unsubstantiated, and simply obstinent refusal to accept the point made is your only strategy for not accepting the point; if you will continue to refuse to offer a counter argument in support of your refusal to accept the point I make, :fu: is what you'll get from me in response.

Fine; I seem to have hit a nerve. I'll say nothing else on the matter in this post. Instead, I'll close by allowing you to convict yourself by your own hand:You'll say nothing because you have nothing to say in valid refutation.

Q: Since you so adamantly insist that there is nothing unique to Christianity in the manner in which the U.S. is governed, you must understand Christianity fairly well. Would you mind outlining, for us, Christian principle as you understand it?

A: I don't really understand much about it at all - but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Q: So, you don't actually have a leg to stand on, do you?

A::fu:Are we playing the "this is you" game? Fine.

You: Assert LOki knows nothing of Christianity.

Me: Here's what I know--Jesus is in charge.

You, without any counter argument at all: You know nothing about Chistianity.

Me: You are a LOLercaust of obstinent denial of fact.