PDA

View Full Version : Religion Was America founded on Judeo Christian principles?


RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 03:41 PM
I have often heard this. I have read many things said by our founding fathers that directly contradicts this. It should also be noted that "In God we trust" was not added to our currency until the 50s also "One nation under God" was not added to the pledge of allegiance until the 50s. So what say you Holy Land and DC experts?

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 03:43 PM
Purposely and directly founded on Judeo-Christian values... definitely NOT. No matter how much revisionist crap there is floating around out there.

Did they play a part in shaping the philosophies and value systems of the people who founded this country? I can't see how they didn't.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 03:52 PM
Yes, however the corruption started very early.

Amnorix
04-11-2011, 03:52 PM
AC has it right. Our founders were all Christians to a greater or lesser degree (Deists in some cases, etc.), but they were pretty serious about the whole separation of Church and state concept.

Amnorix
04-11-2011, 03:54 PM
Yes

Really? Evidence?

Please start by telling me the number of times the word "God", "Almighty" or similar references occur in the Constitution, which is the principal document adopted by the Founders to govern our republic.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 03:55 PM
Really? Evidence?

Please start by telling me the number of times the word "God", "Almighty" or similar references occur in the Constitution, which is the principal document adopted by the Founders to govern our republic.

The word GOD does not have to appear, he asked if the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and i do not see how you can argue it.

Bewbies
04-11-2011, 04:02 PM
I'm pretty sure we were founded on communist values.

Amnorix
04-11-2011, 04:06 PM
The word GOD does not have to appear, he asked if the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and i do not see how you can argue it.

What Judeo-Christian principles are those? I'm serious, I have no idea.

I'm not sure that freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly, or any of the other rights embedded in the Bill of Rights are "Judeo-Christian principles", especially since for well over a millenia no Judeo-Christian state in the world had such rights.

Note that I do NOT dispute that most of the Founders were in fact Christians of some denomination or another, though I wouldn't describe most of them as bible-thumpers by any stretch of the imagination.

Amnorix
04-11-2011, 04:07 PM
I'm pretty sure we were founded on communist values.

Communism isn't a religion, so your sarcastic point is completely irrelevant.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 04:10 PM
What Judeo-Christian principles are those? I'm serious, I have no idea.

I'm not sure that freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly, or any of the other rights embedded in the Bill of Rights are "Judeo-Christian principles", especially since for well over a millenia no Judeo-Christian state in the world had such rights.

Note that I do NOT dispute that most of the Founders were in fact Christians of some denomination or another, though I wouldn't describe most of them as bible-thumpers by any stretch of the imagination.

You answered your own question there, that's what makes this country so great and unique.

orange
04-11-2011, 04:19 PM
You answered your own question there, that's what makes this country so great and unique.

What Judeo-Christian principles are those?

freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly

I guess you're claiming "freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly" are Judeo-Christian principles, or more to the point, were prior to 1776.

Link?

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 04:21 PM
AC has it right. Our founders were all Christians to a greater or lesser degree (Deists in some cases, etc.), but they were pretty serious about the whole separation of Church and state concept.

I beg to differ, by their own words.

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Benjamin Franklin~

"The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.''

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

"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."

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."

Thomas Paine~

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."

-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

"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 cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
he 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?"

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"

John Adams~

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."

Thomas Jefferson~

Just to quote a few~

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 04:26 PM
I guess you're claiming "freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly" are Judeo-Christian principles, or more to the point, were prior to 1776.

Link?

Yes you have freedom in Christ, and may worship how you see fit. Oh and here's a link for you. http://www.kjvbible.net/

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 04:28 PM
Yes you have freedom in Christ, and may worship how you see fit. Oh and here's a link for you. http://www.kjvbible.net/

That my friend is one of the weakest attempts I could imagine to answer the question~

orange
04-11-2011, 04:30 PM
Yes you have freedom in Christ, and may worship how you see fit. Oh and here's a link for you. http://www.kjvbible.net/

Your link to the Bible proves nothing. I guess that's all you've got.

What I want, though, is some sort of actual history of "freedom of speech, assembly, or religion" ever actually appearing in any Christian nation or sect ... or writings ... prior to 1776. That shouldn't be hard, should it?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 04:32 PM
That my friend is one of the weakest attempts I could imagine to answer the question~

Yes I put God's word above even our own constitution. All the answers you need rest within.

orange
04-11-2011, 04:36 PM
Yes I put God's word above even our own constitution. All the answers you need rest within.

God's word about "freedom of religion:"



Non Believers

HelpfulNot Helpful
1 Corinthians 15:33 ESV / 50 helpful votes
Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”

HelpfulNot Helpful
2 Corinthians 6:14 ESV / 39 helpful votes
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

HelpfulNot Helpful
2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV / 27 helpful votes
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

HelpfulNot Helpful
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV / 26 helpful votes
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

HelpfulNot Helpful
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV / 14 helpful votes
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

HelpfulNot Helpful
John 9:30-33 ESV / 13 helpful votes
The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

HelpfulNot Helpful
2 John 1:9-11 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

HelpfulNot Helpful
Luke 19:27 ESV / 6 helpful votes
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

HelpfulNot Helpful
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 ESV / 6 helpful votes
You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

HelpfulNot Helpful
1 Corinthians 11:27-30 ESV / 5 helpful votes
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

HelpfulNot Helpful
Isaiah 1:1-31 ESV / 4 helpful votes
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the Lord has spoken: “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. ...

HelpfulNot Helpful
2 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV / 3 helpful votes
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

(part I)

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 04:39 PM
God's word about "freedom of religion:"



Yes like i've stated before you May worship him how you see fit, as you have freedom in Christ. Jesus did not come to bring death, he came to bring life.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 04:51 PM
Yes like i've stated before you May worship him how you see fit, as you have freedom in Christ. Jesus did not come to bring death, he came to bring life.

And that has what to do with the original question?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 04:57 PM
And that has what to do with the original question?

It seems rather simple to me, since my answer seems to relate how America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

orange
04-11-2011, 05:00 PM
Yes I put God's word above even our own constitution. All the answers you need rest within.

http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/images/inherit_the_wind.jpg

"I do not think about things that I do not think about."
"Do you ever think about things that you do think about?!"

orange
04-11-2011, 05:02 PM
It seems rather simple to me, since my answer seems to relate how America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

RedNeckRaider and I are trying to tell you we're not getting anything out of your responses. You might want to elaborate a little.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 05:03 PM
It seems rather simple to me, since my answer seems to relate how America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Your answer lacks everything but your personal belief in a god. In offers nothing but your blind faith. If it was not blind you would understand you have offered nothing to back up your answer~

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:04 PM
RedNeckRaider and I are trying to tell you we're not getting anything out of your responses. You might want to elaborate a little.

Ok I'll ask you how America was founded on anything other than Judeo-Christian principles?

orange
04-11-2011, 05:08 PM
Ok I'll ask you how America was founded on anything other than Judeo-Christian principles?

It was founded by people who reached beyond Judeo-Christian principles and created their own. People like those quoted by RedNeckRaider in his earlier post. Also:

"The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

- John Adams [A letter to H. Niles, 13 February 1818]

much more here: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/adams_john_american_revolution.html

vailpass
04-11-2011, 05:11 PM
LMAO You guys are funny, trying to convince yourselves our country wasn't founded/run on Christian principles.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:12 PM
Ok I'll ask you how America was founded on anything other than Judeo-Christian principles?

I hope you aren't being serious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:12 PM
It was founded by people who reached beyond Judeo-Christian principles and created their own. People like those quoted by RedNeckRaider in his earlier post.

Their own principles that are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles? I noticed a few quotes from either the few that hated God or that were taken out of context but nothing from the constitution which are incompatible with said values.

orange
04-11-2011, 05:16 PM
John Adams
[A letter to H. Niles, 13 February 1818]


The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen State congresses, &c.

There might be, and there were others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.

Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in an habitual affection for England, as their mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent, (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a mother,) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing like Lady Macbeth, to "dash their brains out," it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased, and were changed into indignation and horror.

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.

By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely interesting to humanity to investigate, and perpetuate to posterity.

To this end, it is greatly to be desired, that young men of letters in all the States, especially in the thirteen original States, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing task, of searching and collecting all the records, pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills, which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people, and compose them into an independent nation.

The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it, in so short a time and by such simple means, was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together -- a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.

In this research, the gloriole of individual gentlemen, and of separate States, is of little consequence. The means and the measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness, patience, and perseverance, through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials and melancholy disasters they may have to encounter.

The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings which contributed to produce the revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain, I have read. Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject, except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable neighbor, Josiah Quincy, appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought to be traced back for two hundred years, and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should the principles and feelings of the English and Scotch towards the colonies, through that whole period, ever be forgotten. The perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and of those of America, the next year after the suppression of the French power in America, came to a crisis, and produced an explosion.

It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America, by parliamentary taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict executions those acts of parliament, which were well known by the appellation of the acts of trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century, and some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.

This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which went on increasing till, in 1775, it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.

The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were, first and foremost, before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thacher; next to him, Samuel Adams; next to him, John Hancock; then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock's life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this, I hope, will be done by some younger and abler hand. Mr. Thacher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister at law, in as large practice as any one in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning, ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, "Thacher was not born a plebeian, but he was determined to die one." In May, 1763, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives in the legislature , a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May, 1761, and he continued to be reflectcd annually till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis, then attending the Congress at New York. Thacher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of Lieutenant-Governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments, of Judge of Probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty's Council in the Legislature, his brother-in-law Secretary of State by the king's commission, a brother of that Secretary of State, a Judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council, now in 1760 and 1761, soliciting and accepting the office of Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded, as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James's, and their servile parliament.

His indignation against him hence forward, to 1765, when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge. For, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one, in which he did not invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could, on all subjects of religion, morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belles lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics, -- Locke, Clark, Leibnitz, Bolingbroke, Berkeley, -- the pre-established harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment of coincidences between their operations; fate, foreknowledge absolute; and we reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high as Milton's gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town. But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending, threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death. From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, parliament, and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation, to annul all their charters, to constitute them all royal governments, to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation, to apply that revenue to pay the salaries of governors, judges, and all other crown officers; and, after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further, to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependents, adherents, shoelickers, &c., entirely devoted. He asserted that they were all engaged with all the crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England, in a deep and treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country, for their own private, personal and family aggrandizement. His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled; not only in private, confidential conversations, but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet of "Summa Potestatis," and rarely mentioned him but by the name of "Summa." His liberties of speech were no secrets to his enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. For they hated him worse than they did James Otis or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father's disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thacher's character through life had been so modest, decent, unassuming; his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated, that they dared not attack him. In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston Cicero. Mr. Thacher's frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury, when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia resolves: "Oh yes--they are men! they are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court, and make a speech, which shall be read after my death, as my dying testimony against this infernal tyranny which they are bringing upon us." Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people, he would not have complained so pathetically of the "lethargy and stupidity that prevailed;" for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough; and some of the people proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thacher soon died, deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.

Another gentleman, who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution, was Doctor Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha's Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and America, by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George the Second, 1749, and by many other writings, particularly a sermon in 1750, on the 30th of January, on the subject of passive obedience and non-resistance, in which the saintship and martyrdom of King Charles the First are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was read by everybody; celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies. During the reigns of King George the First and King George the Second, the reigns of the Stuarts, the two Jameses and the two Charleses were in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered by their ancestors under those reigns, had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to revive all their animosities against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism, and inconsistency. David Hume's plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes of the Stuarts, had not then appeared. To draw the character of Mayhew, would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death, in 1766. In 1763 appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker, on the charter and conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. To form a judgment of this debate, I beg leave to refer to a review of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some, very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr. Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close, correct reasoning.

If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches, as conventicles and schism shops.

Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character, his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.

Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose Life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think that, after mature investigation, he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not "give the first impulse to the ball of independence," and that Otis, Thacher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others, were laboring for several years at the wheel before the name of Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/adams_john_american_revolution.html

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:17 PM
LMAO You guys are funny, trying to convince yourselves our country wasn't founded/run on Christian principles.

Wow. (yep, my wows are back!)

How can you possibly blind yourself to the OVERWHELMING historical data here?

I had 13 years of Catholic School.. and luckily they didn't try to lie to me and rewrite history.. my teachers had enough FAITH in the merits of their beliefs that they didn't have to attempt to overlay them onto other historical accomplishments to give them credence.

Let's parse this out..

Most people agree that America was founded by our Founding Fathers (duh)
Our Founding Fathers were a product of the Age of Enlightenment
The Age Of Enlightenment was marked by a shift toward reason and away from dogma.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:19 PM
<center> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/images/tri.gif

<hr color="#000000" size="1" width="96%"> <table border="0"><tbody><tr><td height="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table> Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation. <table border="0"><tbody><tr><td height="7">
</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr color="#000000" size="1" width="97%"></center> Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

<b><big>A</big>rticle 1.</b> There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 2.</b> If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 3.</b> If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 4.</b> Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 5.</b> A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 6.</b> Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 7.</b> Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 8.</b> If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 9.</b> The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 10.</b> The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 11.</b> As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
<b><big>A</big>rt. 12.</b> In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by


J<small>USSOF</small> B<small>ASHAW</small> M<small>AHOMET</small>, Bey.
M<small>AMET</small>, Treasurer.
A<small>MET</small>, Minister of Marine.
S<small>OLIMAN</small> K<small>AYA</small>.
G<small>ALIL</small>, General of the Troops.
M<small>AHOMET</small>, Commander of the City.
A<small>MET</small>, Chamberlain.
A<small>LLY</small>, Chief of the Divan.
M<small>AMET</small>, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by



H<small>ASSAN</small> B<small>ASHAW</small>, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, J<small>OEL</small> B<small>ARLOW</small>.

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 05:20 PM
Our "country" was indeed founded by Christians. Our "country" was settled by Christians; I know because my family was one of them. Often people think of our framers in terms of the major players and disregard the fact that the actual people that made it possible were the people that gave their blood in war. They were Christian. They weren't Islamic Muslims, or buddists, or hindu, or rastas. They were Quakers, Round Heads, Protestants, and Catholics.

Our Constitutions was designed in part to give everyone I mentioned and more the right to worship without government interference. That's the important part.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:20 PM
<big>
</big><b><big>

A</big>rt. 11.</b> As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

orange
04-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Their own principles that are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles? I noticed a few quotes from either the few that hated God or that were taken out of context but nothing from the constitution which are incompatible with said values.

Separation of Church and State was "incompatible with said values." It had never happened before*; and prior governments claimed their legitimacy was God-ordained.


* possibly excepting some little canton or so forth

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Their own principles that are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles? I noticed a few quotes from either the few that hated God or that were taken out of context but nothing from the constitution which are incompatible with said values.

That is your logical construct? We were founded on principles that you don't think are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles.. therefore we were found on Judeo-Christian principles?

You know, there is a twisted sort of logic there that is fun but incorrect.

If you want to say our country was founded on principles that are not incompatible with and often shared by Judeo-Christian tradition.. I can completely see you having a leg to stand on. If you look at my first post, it pretty clears explains why that may be.

vailpass
04-11-2011, 05:23 PM
Wow. (yep, my wows are back!)

How can you possibly blind yourself to the OVERWHELMING historical data here?

I had 13 years of Catholic School.. and luckily they didn't try to lie to me and rewrite history.. my teachers had enough FAITH in the merits of their beliefs that they didn't have to attempt to overlay them onto other historical accomplishments to give them credence.

Let's parse this out..

Most people agree that America was founded by our Founding Fathers (duh)
Our Founding Fathers were a product of the Age of Enlightenment
The Age Of Enlightenment was marked by a shift toward reason and away from dogma.

Let me put it another way: anyone who thinks America and her citizens have not, since her formation, been heavily influenced by Judeo Christian ethics and beliefs more than any other set of values or beliefs is kidding themselves. So help me God.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Our "country" was indeed founded by Christians. Our "country" was settled by Christians; I know because my family was one of them. Often people think of our framers in terms of the major players and disregard the fact that the actual people that made it possible were the people that gave their blood in war. They were Christian. They weren't Islamic Muslims, or buddists, or hindu, or rastas. They were Quakers, Round Heads, Protestants, and Catholics.

Our Constitutions was designed in part to give everyone I mentioned and more the right to worship without government interference. That's the important part.

I bet my family beats your family on US settlement history... and we were nominally Church of England... but pretty much secular. I like to think even enlightened. :p

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:26 PM
Let me put it another way: anyone who thinks America and her citizens have not, since her formation, been heavily influenced by Judeo Christian ethics and beliefs more than any other set of values or beliefs is kidding themselves. So help me God.

That is a much more rational way to put it and I can easily see that being valid.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:28 PM
Separation of Church and State was "incompatible with said values." It had never happened before*; and prior governments claimed their legitimacy was God-ordained.


* possibly excepting some little canton or so forth

As a Christian i love the fact we are supposed to have separation of Church and state. Serial Killers invoke God as a reason to commit atrocities but it doesn't make it right.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:29 PM
Well, the Senate says no.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:30 PM
That is your logical construct? We were founded on principles that you don't think are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles.. therefore we were found on Judeo-Christian principles?

You know, there is a twisted sort of logic there that is fun but incorrect.

If you want to say our country was founded on principles that are not incompatible with and often shared by Judeo-Christian tradition.. I can completely see you having a leg to stand on. If you look at my first post, it pretty clears explains why that may be.

So your argument stands that we were started as a God-less nation? I will have to respectfully disagree.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:30 PM
I can't imagine why Christianity would ever want to claim responsibility for the U.S.

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 05:31 PM
I bet my family beats your family on US settlement history... and we were nominally Church of England... but pretty much secular. I like to think even enlightened. :p

You might, but when you go back that far does it really matter? 1635 brother, Jamestown and Surry. I can send you links too. We were Puritans settling in one of the 7 shires of Virginia. We came from Wales sponsered by a Quaker. To put this another way; the Dutch first brought over slaves in 1608.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:33 PM
You might, but when you go back that far does it really matter? 1635 brother, Jamestown and Surry. I can send you links too. We were Puritans settling in one of the 7 shires of Virginia. We came from Wales sponsered by a Quaker. To put this another way; the Dutch first brought over slaves in 1608.


1627, noob.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:35 PM
So your argument stands that we were started as a God-less nation? I will have to respectfully disagree.

Depending on what you are saying by this, you'd be wrong then.

We started as a REASON based nation .. a Nature's God, Providence, Creator concept was given a nod and a wink but was not an influencing factor on how our nation was founded and established. That does not mean we were a God-less nation... but you don't have to shove God in every nook and cranny of life.

How about a horrendous analogy but it's off the top of my head...
ChiefsPlanet was founded based on The Chiefs.. I didn't start the forum with the Royals in mind.. but as a lifelong Royals fan I wasn't against them either.. I just didn't go out of my way to insert them into the founding of the board.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:40 PM
Depending on what you are saying by this, you'd be wrong then.

We started as a REASON based nation .. a Nature's God, Providence, Creator concept was given a nod and a wink but was not an influencing factor on how our nation was founded and established. That does not mean we were a God-less nation... but you don't have to shove God in every nook and cranny of life.

How about a horrendous analogy but it's off the top of my head...
ChiefsPlanet was founded based on The Chiefs.. I didn't start the forum with the Royals in mind.. but as a lifelong Royals fan I wasn't against them either.. I just didn't go out of my way to insert them into the founding of the board.

In your opinion, what is the source of our rights as they are affirmed in the Constitution?

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:41 PM
In your opinion, what is the source of our rights as they are affirmed in the Constitution?

In your opinion, what is the authority of the United States Senate to decide this matter?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:42 PM
Depending on what you are saying by this, you'd be wrong then.

We started as a REASON based nation .. a Nature's God, Providence, Creator concept was given a nod and a wink but was not an influencing factor on how our nation was founded and established. That does not mean we were a God-less nation... but you don't have to shove God in every nook and cranny of life.

How about a horrendous analogy but it's off the top of my head...
ChiefsPlanet was founded based on The Chiefs.. I didn't start the forum with the Royals in mind.. but as a lifelong Royals fan I wasn't against them either.. I just didn't go out of my way to insert them into the founding of the board.

I understand what you're saying but to say that your God has no affect on your principles is to not understand ones reasoning. No matter if ones God is Jesus, Buddha, Mother earth, Evolution or ones self it certainly controls the very essence of ones being.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:42 PM
In your opinion, what is the authority of the United States Senate to decide this matter?

What matter?

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:43 PM
You might, but when you go back that far does it really matter? 1635 brother, Jamestown and Surry. I can send you links too. We were Puritans settling in one of the 7 shires of Virginia. We came from Wales sponsered by a Quaker. To put this another way; the Dutch first brought over slaves in 1608.

HA I BEAT YOU! by 3 whole years! :D 1632 - Cambridge/Boston then on to New Haven/Milford

Pants
04-11-2011, 05:46 PM
Their own principles that are incompatible with Judeo-Christian principles? I noticed a few quotes from either the few that hated God or that were taken out of context but nothing from the constitution which are incompatible with said values.

Well, going by their principles I don't have to believe in the Christian God at all. In fact, I can create and worship my own god or an idol and I do believe that would be frowned upon in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, wouldn't you say?

I absolutely love how RnR just gave you a bunch of blasphemous quotes from our Founding Fathers and you simply ignored them in your righteous march. LMAO

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:47 PM
In your opinion, what is the source of our rights as they are affirmed in the Constitution?


In all seriousness though;



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


ordain :To order by or as if by decree.



According to the United States Constitution, our rights are affirmed by the will of the people themselves.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:48 PM
What matter?

The OP.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:50 PM
The OP.

Despite post 33, the Senate has "decided" nothing. It stated its opinion. We citizens allow that.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:51 PM
In all seriousness though;



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


ordain :To order by or as if by decree.



According to the United States Constitution, our rights are affirmed by the will of the people themselves.

Then our rights cannot outlast that piece of paper.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 05:52 PM
Well, going by their principles I don't have to believe in the Christian God at all. In fact, I can create and worship my own god or an idol and I do believe that would be frowned upon in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, wouldn't you say?

I absolutely love how RnR just gave you a bunch of blasphemous quotes from our Founding Fathers and you simply ignored them in your righteous march. LMAO

Who cares if it's frowned upon you are allowed to worship whatever false idol you want doesn't affect me. I consider 2 of the 3 to be God haters so the fact you LOVED it doesn't surprise me and what righteous march are you referring to?

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Despite post 33, the Senate has "decided" nothing. It stated its opinion. We citizens allow that.

Are you aware of the time frame involved in the clear and correct statement form the United States Senate that this country was in no way founded on the Christian religion?

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 05:53 PM
1627, noob.

Nice!!!

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Are you aware of the time frame involved in the clear and correct statement form the United States Senate that this country was in no way founded on the Christian religion?

I am aware of the time frame. I agree that it is clear and correct. My God carries no blame for this mess of a governmental system.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Then our rights cannot outlast that piece of paper.

It's a founding document, and a legal one. You can go burn a book containing the codes and laws of your county but that doesn't make you free to break them.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:56 PM
I am aware of the time frame. I agree that it is clear and correct. My God carries no blame for this mess of a nation.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:57 PM
I wouldn't have it any other way.

I edited. Nation was too sweeping.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
It's a founding document, and a legal one. You can go burn a book containing the codes and laws of your county but that doesn't make you free to break them.

Okay. That has nothing to do with the topic, but okay.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
I edited. Nation was too sweeping.


Gotcha. I think I understand what you meant.

Pants
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Who cares if it's frowned upon you are allowed to worship whatever false idol you want doesn't affect me. I consider 2 of the 3 to be God haters so the fact you LOVED it doesn't surprise me and what righteous march are you referring to?

Well, Christianity says I am not allowed to worship a false idol. For example, people who worshiped false idols were tortured and killed as heretics in Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand II. I think that would be an example of a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think freedom of religion and separation of church and state pretty much defines a nation that is NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
In all seriousness though;



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
C

ordain :To order by or as if by decree.



According to the United States Constitution, our rights are affirmed by the will of the people themselves.
"in Order to form a more perfect union" that line makes little sense to me~

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
HA I BEAT YOU! by 3 whole years! :D 1632 - Cambridge/Boston then on to New Haven/Milford

Northern scum! :) So now to the 64 dollar question; Were they Christian?

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
1627, noob.

CRAP, you beat me! On a side note... by the time all three of our families were here (1627, 1632 and 1635) there were only about 10k European settlers in the colonies...

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:01 PM
CRAP, you beat me! On a side note... by the time all three of our families were here (1627, 1632 and 1635) there were only about 10k European settlers in the colonies...

Well, to be completely honest, I have ancestors that were here well before 1627 but they weren't part of "America" really.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:01 PM
Well, Christianity says I am not allowed to worship a false idol. For example, people who worshiped false idols were tortured and killed as heretics in Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand II. I think that would be an example of a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think freedom of religion and separation of church and state pretty much defines a nation that is NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Ok just because you think being a Christian says you must force people to accept the Lord doesn't make it so, quite to the contrary. If God wanted to make us worship him he would have done so.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 06:02 PM
Northern scum! :) So now to the 64 dollar question; Were they Christian?

meh, involved in the Church socially but nothing I have read points toward anything other than hard working, hard drinking and based on the number of kids... hard something else. So it appears they were your typical social Christians that were more secular, kinda hard to say from this distance.

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 06:02 PM
CRAP, you beat me! On a side note... by the time all three of our families were here (1627, 1632 and 1635) there were only about 10k European settlers in the colonies...

I haven't found too many people that beat my year or that would know.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 06:04 PM
I haven't found too many people that beat my year or that would know.

Hell I only found out a few years ago when my mom started doing my genealogy

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:04 PM
"in Order to form a more perfect union" that line makes little sense to me~

I take it to mean that they believed a Union was already in place but it needed to be perfected, and that it could only happen if the concepts of the Constitution were adhered to. But what do they know, they couldn't even spell "defense" right.

orange
04-11-2011, 06:05 PM
"in Order to form a more perfect union" that line makes little sense to me~

They were already a union. The Constitution was to upgrade the Articles of Confederation.

Pants
04-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Ok just because you think being a Christian says you must force people to accept the Lord doesn't make it so, quite to the contrary. If God wanted to make us worship him he would have done so.

It's not what I think. I'm giving you historical contexts. So, in your opinion, the United States of America is the first nation in the history of human civilization to be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs?

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Ok just because you think being a Christian says you must force people to accept the Lord doesn't make it so, quite to the contrary. If God wanted to make us worship him he would have done so.

Do you think being a Christian means not worshiping a false idol?

Adept Havelock
04-11-2011, 06:07 PM
In your opinion, what is the source of our rights as they are affirmed in the Constitution?

The ability to defend them. Nothing more.

mlyonsd
04-11-2011, 06:10 PM
The ability to defend them.Holy crap an AH sighting.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:10 PM
It's not what I think. I'm giving you historical contexts. So, in your opinion, the United States of America is the first nation in the history of human civilization to be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs?

No but it is the closest to it in history. I do not believe man has the ability to do it right but it's the best we can do.

Adept Havelock
04-11-2011, 06:11 PM
Holy crap an AH sighting.

I still lurk on occasion, but spend most of my time in the Media forum off-season. Hope all is well with you folks over here.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:11 PM
Do you think being a Christian means not worshiping a false idol?

Yes i do, but i also believe based upon history man is an utter failure at judging righteousness, therefore making freedom the only good alternative.

Pants
04-11-2011, 06:14 PM
Yes i do, but i also believe based upon history man is an utter failure at judging righteousness, therefore making freedom the only good alternative.

Isn't worshiping the Christian God the cornerstone of the being Christian? I honestly do not understand you, KILLER-CLOWN, you're like a walking, breathing oxymoron.

This country was founded on Christianity, but really had nothing to do with it and actually tried to separate itself from all religion, but, you know, that's part of being based on religion...

Iowanian
04-11-2011, 06:14 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — "

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:14 PM
Yes i do, but i also believe based upon history man is an utter failure at judging righteousness, therefore making freedom the only good alternative.


What is the Biblical punishment for worshiping a false idol?

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:22 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — "


That would be the Declaration Of Independence, pertaining to why they thought they had a right to break their political bonds with England.

HolyHandgernade
04-11-2011, 06:24 PM
Most people can't even define what a "Judeo-Christian" principle is. Its usually code for the 10 Commandments because Christians like to pretend those were the first laws given to men to effectively and piously rule a large body of people. Its funny, but you hardly ever see a Christian quote the "beatitudes" attributed to Jesus when asked for "Judeo-Christian" principles, or the "Golden Rule".

Also, while the majority of people that considered themselves "religious" at this time were undoubtably Christian, the majority of people really didn't consider themselves to be religious. So what they are referring to is a "common cultural background". In other words, even if you didn't subscribe to Christianity, you were at the very least, familiar with it. But a cultural makeup is not the same thing as a social construction. This is the point the Founders (the ones whose opinions and thoughts were actually incorporated into the final draft), were trying to differentiate.

In the past, the cultural religious background was used to help enforce the social law (either through guilt or terrestrial extension of divine punishment). Because such a method was up to the interpretation of nobility and priests, the Founders sought an impartial "law" distinct from religious opinion. This was an attempt to distinguish against the crimes often committed in the name of a religious justification.

Now, whether an individual believes his/her morality derives from divine influence or a simple understanding that an acceptable amount of cooperation and organization is necessary for the general welfare of all, is irrelevant to the social construction of the government. By separating itself from religious influence, it simultaneously allows an individual the liberty to choose their religious opinion while holding a common structure devoid of it. Laws are meant to influence action, not opinion.

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 06:25 PM
meh, involved in the Church socially but nothing I have read points toward anything other than hard working, hard drinking and based on the number of kids... hard something else. So it appears they were your typical social Christians that were more secular, kinda hard to say from this distance.

The might have been Puritan settling up there.

So my point is that I don't think of this country as something that was established when the Constitution was signed. It was established a couple hundred years earlier. And they...our ancestors...were mostly Christians. I take a larger view of it.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 06:30 PM
The might have been Puritan settling up there.

So my point is that I don't think of this country as something that was established when the Constitution was signed. It was established a couple hundred years earlier. And they...our ancestors...were mostly Christians. I take a larger view of it.


Well, yeah, if you go back farther you will get to the Puritans. Their culture is not what this nation was founded upon. Puritan belief is far removed from the concept of "America" as a nation.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 06:35 PM
That would be the Declaration Of Independence, pertaining to why they thought they had a right to break their political bonds with England.

The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

mlyonsd
04-11-2011, 06:35 PM
The way I always understood it was the founders all had their own beliefs and the basic underlying idea of the constitution religion could not be used to persecute someone.

Not the idea that a common belief was the true real order.

Garcia Bronco
04-11-2011, 06:38 PM
Well, yeah, if you go back farther you will get to the Puritans. Their culture is not what this nation was founded upon. Puritan belief is far removed from the concept of "America" as a nation.

Sure they did, they just weren't the only kind of Christans. But their influence existed long after they were gone.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 06:42 PM
I take it to mean that they believed a Union was already in place but it needed to be perfected, and that it could only happen if the concepts of the Constitution were adhered to. But what do they know, they couldn't even spell "defense" right.

LMAO as long as we ended up more perfect ;)

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:42 PM
What is the Biblical punishment for worshiping a false idol?

Present at the Great white throne judgment.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:45 PM
Isn't worshiping the Christian God the cornerstone of the being Christian? I honestly do not understand you, KILLER-CLOWN, you're like a walking, breathing oxymoron.

This country was founded on Christianity, but really had nothing to do with it and actually tried to separate itself from all religion, but, you know, that's part of being based on religion...

It isn't really that complicated, What is so hard to understand about all the utter failings of man? It is much easier to worship the correct way than someone elses corrupt version foisted upon you.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 06:47 PM
Present at the Great white throne judgment.

Just wondering, how much of the bible have you read. If you have read the entire thing what version and how many times?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 06:59 PM
Just wondering, how much of the bible have you read. If you have read the entire thing what version and how many times?

I grew up Catholic so that was pushed on me, I cannot count how many times i've read the KJV, I'll just say i read it regularly.

RedNeckRaider
04-11-2011, 07:00 PM
I grew up Catholic so that was pushed on me, I cannot count how many times i've read the KJV, I'll just say i read it regularly.

I was just curious. Sometime in another thread maybe we can discuss the bible~

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 07:01 PM
I was just curious. Sometime in another thread maybe we can discuss the bible~

Sounds great! :thumb:

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 07:28 PM
I grew up Catholic so that was pushed on me, I cannot count how many times i've read the KJV, I'll just say i read it regularly.

blah, KJV is one of the worst most inaccurate translations. The New Jerusalem Bible is a much much better translation.

Of course, without a solid philological understanding of the original texts, it's all gonna be misread more often than not.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 07:37 PM
blah, KJV is one of the worst most inaccurate translations. The New Jerusalem Bible is a much much better translation.

Of course, without a solid philological understanding of the original texts, it's all gonna be misread more often than not.

I believe the KJV is the only inspired version, if there is a problem i've found it comes from ones understanding of it. The other translations substitute words which in most cases are in gross error.

vailpass
04-11-2011, 07:38 PM
That is a much more rational way to put it and I can easily see that being valid.

Yeah, upon re-read my initial statement was sweeping and pretty much void for vagueness.
I think it had something to do with my dad taking me up a mountain when I was a kid and damn near sacrificing me until some voice in his head called it off at the last minute.
Shit like that has a way of sticking with you.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 07:41 PM
Yeah, upon re-read my initial statement was sweeping and pretty much void for vagueness.
I think it had something to do with my dad taking me up a mountain when I was a kid and damn near sacrificing me until some voice in his head called it off at the last minute.
Shit like that has a way of sticking with you.

Was your dads name Abe by chance? oh and how OLD are you?

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 07:51 PM
I believe the KJV is the only inspired version, if there is a problem i've found it comes from ones understanding of it. The other translations substitute words which in most cases are in gross error.

So, I take it you read Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic fluently? My best friend does and he seems to think the KJV is a steaming pile of crap as far as accurate translations go. I'm going to stick with his opinion since he is a leading scholar in the field. ...but as I said before, unless you have a much deeper understanding of the context and culture surrounding the texts.. then they are going to be misread anyway.

Sannyasi
04-11-2011, 08:05 PM
So, I take it you read Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic fluently? My best friend does and he seems to think the KJV is a steaming pile of crap as far as accurate translations go. I'm going to stick with his opinion since he is a leading scholar in the field. ...but as I said before, unless you have a much deeper understanding of the context and culture surrounding the texts.. then they are going to be misread anyway.

The KJV is my preferred version, just because I find the language more aesthetically pleasing. That being said, your friend is 100% correct. The KJV is a translation of a translation, and is not suitable at all if you are actually looking for a good literal translation of the ancient texts.

On the topic of the thread, I would say no America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but rather enlightenment ones. In fact I find Jesus had very little practical advice to give on the topic of government :shrug: And we certainly didn't follow Mosaic law, thank God :p

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 08:09 PM
So, I take it you read Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic fluently? My best friend does and he seems to think the KJV is a steaming pile of crap as far as accurate translations go. I'm going to stick with his opinion since he is a leading scholar in the field. ...but as I said before, unless you have a much deeper understanding of the context and culture surrounding the texts.. then they are going to be misread anyway.

Hebrew and Aramaic have little to do with it since the Textus Receptus was written in Greek.

Oh and to RnR i apologize for hijacking your thread. :)

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 08:24 PM
The ability to defend them. Nothing more.

One of the reasons I couldn't care less whether the U.S. survives through next week.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 08:32 PM
Hebrew and Aramaic have little to do with it since the Textus Receptus was written in Greek.

Oh and to RnR i apologize for hijacking your thread. :)

Gotcha, so you think the translations of translations (sometimes of even more translations) are the "accurate" texts...

So you do speak Koine Greek fluently? So that way you would know when the KJV is a complete and utter mess and when it is in the ballpark.

Dude, when a noted Biblical scholar tells me that its a crap translation.. I tend to go with him. The KJV is just silly to read in modern day... if you like the "tradition" and such.. then go back to the Latin Vulgate

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 08:37 PM
Gotcha, so you think the translations of translations (sometimes of even more translations) are the "accurate" texts...

So you do speak Koine Greek fluently? So that way you would know when the KJV is a complete and utter mess and when it is in the ballpark.

Dude, when a noted Biblical scholar tells me that its a crap translation.. I tend to go with him. The KJV is just silly to read in modern day... if you like the "tradition" and such.. then go back to the Latin Vulgate

I'll go with the Holy Spirit over biblical scholars, I do not trust my eternal soul to others neither should anyone else.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 08:39 PM
The KJV is a perfect example of how grown men with working brains can shut them COMPLETELY off because they have been brainwashed by their religious upbringing. I'm not just talking about knee jerk beliefs systems.. I am talking something as simple as wanting accurate translations...

To tell the truth, I like the "sound" of the KJV better... it's what I remember from childhood.. just doesn't seem right without the thees and thous... but I consciously divorced myself from that "feeling" in favor of a logical approach. I probably would have never done so had I not been lucky enough to have a mentor who was a biblical scholar.

In the end, you can prefer the KJV for nostalgic reasons... but otherwise there is simply NO defending it. It is inaccurate, and the prose is just awful.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 08:53 PM
I'll go with the Holy Spirit over biblical scholars, I do not trust my eternal soul to others neither should anyone else.

So the Holy Spirit decided to inspire a grossly mistranslated version of the bible because he thought it would be fun? Come on man.

Where in the bible is that view coming from? Is it something The Holy Spirit told you or MAYBE just MAYBE it's a belief based on growing up with that version and having a preference based on what you know.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'd like to hear the justification that the KJV is the word of God but the New Jerusalem (or insert another version) is not.

The KJV was the 3rd English version that was meant to correct errors in previous versions... why would future version not be just as valid if not more so?

Does the Holy Spirit primarily speak English? Are the versions in other languages invalid too?

You see how silly this is right?

Dave Lane
04-11-2011, 09:07 PM
No and Repost.

Dave Lane
04-11-2011, 09:08 PM
He always speaks to me in Aramaic. Its his native tongue after all.

Dave Lane
04-11-2011, 09:12 PM
And now my repost: For about the 5th time

A Work in Progress

"Do not add to these words lest He reprove you and you be proved a liar." – Proverbs 30.6.


There are many Christian bibles. Several hundred in fact (and this number excludes the thousand-plus foreign language editions). Every group that has ever claimed the title ‘Christian’, from gnostic sects of the second century, through countless ‘heresies’ of the Middle Ages, to Mormons of the twentieth century, has had recourse to its own version of the holy testament.

This fine tuning of God’s word, which began at the very inception of Christianity, continues even in our own day. Though this plethora of bibles share a common core, many contain material omitted by others, and vice versa. Even where the content is ostensibly the same, verses have been removed or added, words transposed, rearranged or rephrased. Evidently, God, as the ultimate ‘author’ is endlessly searching for that fine nuance, that pithy turn of phrase.

What is not apparent, when we pick up the holy book, is the extensive editing that has prepared that volume for public consumption, and this editing applies just as much to the central story and its main characters as to any subsequent tinkering – more so, in fact. In the first two centuries of the Christian era, when a ‘Bible’ as such did not exist and the proselytes of the new faith were scouring the Jewish scriptures for confirmation of their heresy, many scribes turned their hand to ‘gospel’ writing. These publications were severely ‘limited editions’, painstakingly written by hand. Often untitled and unsigned these texts passed from hand to hand, in time acquiring the authority and aura of an antique and blurring the distinction between fiction, history and scripture.

Director's Cut

It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.

Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!

Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them.

To regard this wholesale editorial selection and censorship, and the rewriting which accompanied it, as a function purely of the human mind, influenced by considerations of ambition and wealth, power and politics, is, of course, to lose sight of the hand of god; the divine, beavering away in overdrive in central Europe and the eastern Mediterranean centuries ago!





Keeping Current

In truth, if scripture were not to be regularly revised no one alive would understand a word of it. Through the centuries, vocabulary, word usage, syntax and grammar continuously change. The ‘Great Bible’ of 1539 was the first English ‘national’ bible, appearing after the break with the Pope and his Latin Vulgate. Though written in ‘English’, little of it would be intelligible to the twenty first century English speaker. A tad more digestible is the ‘Authorised’ King James Version, the earliest bible to introduce the numbering of sentences. Its magisterial tone, with all its ‘begats’ and ‘art thous’, merely ossifies the appealing authority and grandiose language of monarchical England in 1611. It was followed by a series of subsequent revisions including the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, etc., etc.

The revisionist claim has always been made of ‘capturing the essential truth’ of the Greek and Hebrew originals – a neat trick when one considers that the originals were actually written entirely in capitals and without the benefit of punctuation or even spaces between words. Because of the high cost of vellum many words were truncated or abbreviated to squeeze more in – but at a cost of even greater ambiguity. As the original scrolls were copied, generation by generation, marginal notes, added by later clerics as personal interpretations or amplifications of obscure points, were written into the body of scripture itself. In this centuries’ long process of revision, many gospels fell completely by the wayside, not even making the apocrypha and known to us today only by chance survival.


Deceptive Arrangement

For the most part, each of the two ‘testaments’ of the Bible is made up of chapters, grandly styled ‘books’, with each ‘book’ set out in groups of paragraphs, confusingly called ‘chapters.’ Some ‘books’ are very brief indeed. The book of Ruth, for example, is barely two pages, 2,578 words in fact. The longest, Jeremiah, at 42,659 words, would make a pamphlet of reasonable length. Authorship of the Old Testament was largely a 5th/6th century BC affair (with the ‘Chronicler’ not writing until the mid-fourth century); authorship of the New Testament primarily occurred in the 2nd century AD. With all the revisions and re-writes the effort involved a good many people. Arguably, some of them wrote inspiring words – but in no sense is that the same as the words being inspired by a deity. The total compendium, though impressive and at times entertaining, makes torturous reading.

The ‘books’ are arranged in a particular order, one that appears to be an unfolding story – from Jews to Jesus, from Jesus to Church, from birth of the Messiah to a vision of the Day of Judgement yet to come.

It appears to be chronological. It is not.

The order is largely reversed. Exodus was written before Genesis. ‘Prophesies’ written after events are reassigned to an earlier authorship in order to establish their veracity. An ancient and heroic ‘history’ reflects the contingencies of a much later time. The final book, the ‘Revelation of St. John’ is the earliest, not the latest, part of the New Testament, save for the correspondence of St Paul, which itself pre-dates all the gospels – and not one of the favoured gospels took on their present form before 150 AD.

Similar liberties have been taken within the individual books themselves, with later additions used to preface or addend the original work. Mark is earlier than Matthew, yet its ending has been extended by borrowings from the later work. The ‘Revelation of St. John’, in its original draft a composite of several Jewish apocalyptic dramas, was later Christianized by a preface of ‘letters to the churches of Asia’.





No more true is this process of time-reversal or ‘back projection’ than of the life and times of the Jesus character himself, who began his existence as a celestial superhero, acquired an earthly death; subsequently was given an adulthood; and completed his career with a spectacular nativity!


The Church, in the sense of organisation, authority, assets and membership preceded rather than followed the justifying doctrine. As the organisation and its needs changed so the ‘testament of god’ adapted accordingly. Shuffling the confused jigsaw of stories back into the chronology of authorship proves very revealing.


Business Begets Bibliolatry

What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling. For example, if we look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather different: we can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)



Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!

Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?

"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."

"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."


The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!

Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:

"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)


Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)


Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)


Or was John nearer the truth when he says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)



Creationism

By a convoluted process of interpolation, accretion and redaction, the whole compendium of fables and fancy was brought into being. The four Gospels had a precedent in the ‘sayings of Jesus,’ epithets of wisdom attached to a shadowy Christ figure. Progressively anthropomorphized into a human figure, a series of anecdotes, ‘reminiscences’ and stories were attached to his name.

What follows is a retracing of this great work of fiction, this history of a fake history; not the legend of a birth but the birth of a legend.

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 09:41 PM
He always speaks to me in Aramaic. Its his native tongue after all.

No wonder you never understand him! :p

I am not trying to take the piss out of KILLER_CLOWN's beliefs, I just always find it strange when people cling to a certain translation over another.

If he truly believes that the Holy Spirit guided him to the KJV and the KJV is the work that the Holy Spirit approves of, then that is his belief. It's as logically unassailable as it is indefensible but it's no more nutty than what most believe at the end of the day.

KCBOSS1
04-11-2011, 10:34 PM
If you really are interested in hearing some strong evidence, Wallbuilders.com has some pretty strong evidence. Like 27 of or our original 56 were actually seminary graduates. I do not think that most of our founding fathers were "traditional" believers, but more like pioneer style non-conformist believers. They definitely had many different theological perspectives. George Whitfield was one of the original revivalists that was one of the strongest inspirations for the revolution and declaration of independence.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-11-2011, 10:54 PM
No wonder you never understand him! :p

I am not trying to take the piss out of KILLER_CLOWN's beliefs, I just always find it strange when people cling to a certain translation over another.

If he truly believes that the Holy Spirit guided him to the KJV and the KJV is the work that the Holy Spirit approves of, then that is his belief. It's as logically unassailable as it is indefensible but it's no more nutty than what most believe at the end of the day.

I could care less that someone doesn't understand my beliefs, if my life were free from strife i would be more worried.

Dave Lane
04-11-2011, 11:01 PM
No wonder you never understand him! :p

I am not trying to take the piss out of KILLER_CLOWN's beliefs, I just always find it strange when people cling to a certain translation over another.

If he truly believes that the Holy Spirit guided him to the KJV and the KJV is the work that the Holy Spirit approves of, then that is his belief. It's as logically unassailable as it is indefensible but it's no more nutty than what most believe at the end of the day.

OK at the risk of being banned I'll say it. It is nutty. How is it that after the first 120 translations suddenly god said, yeah that's it! And then 300 more bibles came along after that.

I find people believing in religion much like they would view some one still believing in the easter bunny. There is nothing supernatural in this world. There is only the natural world. It there were demons and devils and gods and stuff there would be miracles all the time. Hell the Chiefs would win the Superbowl today because I am willing to sell my soul to the devil to make it happen. And you guys can ban me if I don't follow through if they win :)

BIG_DADDY
04-11-2011, 11:06 PM
OK at the risk of being banned I'll say it. It is nutty. How is it that after the first 120 translations suddenly god said, yeah that's it! And then 300 more bibles came along after that.

I find people believing in religion much like they would view some one still believing in the easter bunny. There is nothing supernatural in this world. There is only the natural world. It there were demons and devils and gods and stuff there would be miracles all the time. Hell the Chiefs would win the Superbowl today because I am willing to sell my soul to the devil to make it happen. And you guys can ban me if I don't follow through if they win :)

It's not any nuttier than you believing that's the way things should work Mr. Pale Blue Dot.

ClevelandBronco
04-11-2011, 11:13 PM
...Hell the Chiefs would win the Superbowl today because I am willing to sell my soul to the devil to make it happen...

Put aside your beliefs for a second just for the sake of this question: Now if you were the devil, how elusive a prize do you think Dave Lane's soul would really be?

AustinChief
04-11-2011, 11:16 PM
OK at the risk of being banned I'll say it. It is nutty. How is it that after the first 120 translations suddenly god said, yeah that's it! And then 300 more bibles came along after that.

I never said it wasn't nutty, just no more so than most faith based "beliefs."

The Catholic Church has some FANTASTIC philosophical/logical arguments to defend most of it's belief system. If you have ever read Mortimer J Adler, you'll understand what I'm talking about. BUT in the end... if you drill down FAR enough... there is usually something nutty there.

listopencil
04-11-2011, 11:40 PM
The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

I love the way that is phrased, thanks for sharing it. To the point though-this pertains to why they felt the need to break from England. The Constitution sets the framework for our nation. I would imagine that that is why modern law is held up to the Constitution for validity rather than the Declaration Of Independence. It is unfortunate that all men being created equally didn't even begin to apply in this country for another one hundred years or so though.

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 05:00 AM
I love the way that is phrased, thanks for sharing it. To the point though-this pertains to why they felt the need to break from England. The Constitution sets the framework for our nation. I would imagine that that is why modern law is held up to the Constitution for validity rather than the Declaration Of Independence. It is unfortunate that all men being created equally didn't even begin to apply in this country for another one hundred years or so though.

I find the study of our founding fathers fascinating and agree with your interpretation.This thread was intended to challenge the notion that we were founded with defined Christian principles. I did not intend for it to turn into an attack against those who follow Christianity. You haven’t I just chose this reply to redirect the subject~

Barret
04-12-2011, 05:53 AM
Well I think the Founding Fathers were walking a fine line. I think many of them did have Christian type beliefs but they wanted to move as far away from the English Monarchy as possible. The Constitution was ordained by the people, where as the King had his power "Ordained from God" which made him King.

I think they had to make a distinction between a new government and the monarchy or else people would think "the new people are same as the old people, why are we rebelling again?"

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 05:56 AM
Just to quote a few~


There's a difference between a country's founders being practitioners of a particular religion, and the country being founded ON THE PRINCIPLES OF that religion.

What principles that guide Christianity also guide America? Ask Gallileo about freedom of speech. Ask the Jews of Middle Ages Europe about freedom of assembly, or religion.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 05:58 AM
http://writingcompany.blogs.com/this_isnt_writing_its_typ/images/inherit_the_wind.jpg

"I do not think about things that I do not think about."
"Do you ever think about things that you do think about?!"


ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 06:02 AM
Our "country" was indeed founded by Christians. Our "country" was settled by Christians; I know because my family was one of them. Often people think of our framers in terms of the major players and disregard the fact that the actual people that made it possible were the people that gave their blood in war. They were Christian. They weren't Islamic Muslims, or buddists, or hindu, or rastas. They were Quakers, Round Heads, Protestants, and Catholics.

Our Constitutions was designed in part to give everyone I mentioned and more the right to worship without government interference. That's the important part.


This is all true, but it doesn't mean the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what that phrase means. Wouldn't it necessarily mean that we would have to be some kind of Christian fundamentalist state or something?

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 06:05 AM
Let me put it another way: anyone who thinks America and her citizens have not, since her formation, been heavily influenced by Judeo Christian ethics and beliefs more than any other set of values or beliefs is kidding themselves. So help me God.


I'd agree with this. Far better than stating we were founded on Judeo-Christian values, which is both ambiguous (what the hell does it even mean, really) and suggests something far more pervasive/influential than I think existed at the founding.

Your phrase also notes that ongoing effect of Judeo-Christian ethics SINCE the founding, which I think were much more influential in the history of American public policy than they were AT THE FOUNDING.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 06:05 AM
As a Christian i love the fact we are supposed to have separation of Church and state. Serial Killers invoke God as a reason to commit atrocities but it doesn't make it right.

Please join in our conversation at any time instead of consistently talking to yourself over there in the corner.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 06:18 AM
No wonder you never understand him! :p

I am not trying to take the piss out of KILLER_CLOWN's beliefs, I just always find it strange when people cling to a certain translation over another.

If he truly believes that the Holy Spirit guided him to the KJV and the KJV is the work that the Holy Spirit approves of, then that is his belief. It's as logically unassailable as it is indefensible but it's no more nutty than what most believe at the end of the day.


Unfortunately, often rational thought stops where religious belief begins. Not always, of course, and I have the greatest respect for religious practitioners who understand their religion thoroughly enough that their faith isn't shaken by probing questions.

The rest, unfortunately perhaps the majority, are the stupidly religious. Those who believe without any deeper understanding, or even an understanding of how little they know.

Chief Faithful
04-12-2011, 06:22 AM
There's a difference between a country's founders being practitioners of a particular religion, and the country being founded ON THE PRINCIPLES OF that religion.

What principles that guide Christianity also guide America? Ask Gallileo about freedom of speech. Ask the Jews of Middle Ages Europe about freedom of assembly, or religion.

I don't see evidence that the country's founders used principles from a specific "religion" as in denomination or sect, but I do see basic Christian prinicples and ethics throughout.

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

Chief Faithful
04-12-2011, 06:29 AM
Unfortunately, often rational thought stops where religious belief begins. Not always, of course, and I have the greatest respect for religious practitioners who understand their religion thoroughly enough that their faith isn't shaken by probing questions.

The rest, unfortunately perhaps the majority, are the stupidly religious. Those who believe without any deeper understanding, or even an understanding of how little they know.

I could see why you say that if you are from the outside looking in, but from inside the vast majority are conscientious serious minded rational thinking people who are generally not heard from as they proceed forward in their walk in life with God.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-12-2011, 06:46 AM
Please join in our conversation at any time instead of consistently talking to yourself over there in the corner.

Coming from the boards' resident limousine liberal i'll take that as a compliment.

WV
04-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Unfortunately, often rational thought stops where religious belief begins. Not always, of course, and I have the greatest respect for religious practitioners who understand their religion thoroughly enough that their faith isn't shaken by probing questions.

The rest, unfortunately perhaps the majority, are the stupidly religious. Those who believe without any deeper understanding, or even an understanding of how little they know.

Seems like a pretty arrogant point of view. For many being deeply religious doesn't have as much to do with your religious knowledge as much as blind faith. Not saying people wouldn't perhaps get more out of their religion with additional knowledge, but to discount their faith based on how much or how little biblical knowledge they have is a bit callous.

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 09:34 AM
I'd agree with this. Far better than stating we were founded on Judeo-Christian values, which is both ambiguous (what the hell does it even mean, really) and suggests something far more pervasive/influential than I think existed at the founding.

Your phrase also notes that ongoing effect of Judeo-Christian ethics SINCE the founding, which I think were much more influential in the history of American public policy than they were AT THE FOUNDING.

Well said~

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 11:27 AM
Seems like a pretty arrogant point of view. For many being deeply religious doesn't have as much to do with your religious knowledge as much as blind faith. Not saying people wouldn't perhaps get more out of their religion with additional knowledge, but to discount their faith based on how much or how little biblical knowledge they have is a bit callous.


I don't mind blind faith one bit. Anybody can believe whatever they want.
Flat Earth? Go for it!

It's when blind faith meets public discourse I get annoyed. If I (and nearly everyone else) understand your religion better than you do, then you probably shouldn't be debating the topic. At that point, keep your religion private because it's fine to be blind, but why would you try to cross Fifth Avenue without so much as a little white cane?

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 11:56 AM
I don't mind blind faith one bit. Anybody can believe whatever they want.
Flat Earth? Go for it!

It's when blind faith meets public discourse I get annoyed. If I (and nearly everyone else) understand your religion better than you do, then you probably shouldn't be debating the topic. At that point, keep your religion private because it's fine to be blind, but why would you try to cross Fifth Avenue without so much as a little white cane?

I tend to agree. Often on the subject of Christianity and religions in general I will ask questions and state reasons I am agnostic. I have studied different types of religion. I am by far not a biblical scholar but I am capable of asking educated questions. I also find it frustrating when the reply is because that is what I believe. I admire and respect many Christians and enjoy discussing their beliefs along with mine. If blind faith is all that is brought to the discussion than it is pointless to continue. This is really an entirely different topic and would command a thread specific to that subject~

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:40 PM
The word GOD does not have to appear, he asked if the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and i do not see how you can argue it.

The word " Our Lord" with a capital "L" does appear though. They acknowledge that the document was signed in " the Year of our Lord."

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:44 PM
Communism isn't a religion, so your sarcastic point is completely irrelevant.

It is to some.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:48 PM
Separation of Church and State was "incompatible with said values." It had never happened before*; and prior governments claimed their legitimacy was God-ordained.


* possibly excepting some little canton or so forth

Please show me where the Constitution uses the words "separation of Church and State?"

It doesn't. It also does not protect people "from" religion either.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 12:48 PM
It is to some.

It was to some up to a few decades ago. Waving Communism as a bugaboo remains fun for many on here, but it barely has a larger following worldwide than, say, witchcraft.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 12:50 PM
The word " Our Lord" with a capital "L" does appear though. They acknowledge that the document was signed in " the Year of our Lord."


"Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."


Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by


J<small>USSOF</small> B<small>ASHAW</small> M<small>AHOMET</small>, Bey.
M<small>AMET</small>, Treasurer.
A<small>MET</small>, Minister of Marine.
S<small>OLIMAN</small> K<small>AYA</small>.
G<small>ALIL</small>, General of the Troops.
M<small>AHOMET</small>, Commander of the City.
A<small>MET</small>, Chamberlain.
A<small>LLY</small>, Chief of the Divan.
M<small>AMET</small>, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by



H<small>ASSAN</small> B<small>ASHAW</small>, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, J<small>OEL</small> B<small>ARLOW</small>.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:55 PM
The country known as America — yes
The U. S govt — not necessarily

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:56 PM
"Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."


Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by


J<small>USSOF</small> B<small>ASHAW</small> M<small>AHOMET</small>, Bey.
M<small>AMET</small>, Treasurer.
A<small>MET</small>, Minister of Marine.
S<small>OLIMAN</small> K<small>AYA</small>.
G<small>ALIL</small>, General of the Troops.
M<small>AHOMET</small>, Commander of the City.
A<small>MET</small>, Chamberlain.
A<small>LLY</small>, Chief of the Divan.
M<small>AMET</small>, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by



H<small>ASSAN</small> B<small>ASHAW</small>, Dey,

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, J<small>OEL</small> B<small>ARLOW</small>.

That's not the US Constitution. It's a treaty.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 12:56 PM
Please show me where the Constitution uses the words "separation of Church and State?"

It doesn't. It also does not protect people "from" religion either.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution



The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".



No single individual wrote it. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. After the political questions were hashed out a 'committee of style' was formed to put the ideas into formal words. It is generally accepted that Gouverneur Morris created most of the actual wording included in the final draft from the Committee of Style.



The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.



The person most associated with authoring the US Constitution was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. Primary Author: James Madison (drafted the Virginia Plan). He is known as "The Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787. The constitution wasn't passed until 1788


Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "



http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 12:58 PM
It was to some up to a few decades ago. Waving Communism as a bugaboo remains fun for many on here, but it barely has a larger following worldwide than, say, witchcraft.

That may be but I still contend it still is for some even today particularly if they are atheistic communists who worship the state. How many communist wasn't my point though. However, there are still way too many people that still worship the state as if it's a church.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 12:58 PM
That's not the US Constitution. It's a treaty.


Duh, really? It's the United States Senate unanimously signing a legal document, and officially recognizing a calendar not based on the "year of our Lord".

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Interesting how listopencil rarely comes into DC except when there's a religious orientated thread, so he can claim the absolute wall argument. There's no absolute wall, as in protecting people from religious words or statements....such as using the word "Lord" in the document. Furthermore, the states had official churches still established at the time the Constitution was written and ratified. So there was no long arm of the Federal govt intervening to get rid of religion in public matters within the states. This is a point that is often overlooked in our system based on federalism.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 01:02 PM
Duh, really? It's the United States Senate unanimously signing a legal document, and officially recognizing a calendar not based on the "year of our Lord".

Yeah, but "Duh!" I was discussing the Constitution. Got another strawman to pull out? I am arguing against those who think the Constitution means we are also free from religion altogether ( like speech and words) particularly when it established a Federalist system.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 01:17 PM
That may be but I still contend it still is for some even today particularly if they are atheistic communists who worship the state. How many communist wasn't my point though. However, there are still way too many people that still worship the state as if it's a church.

I suppose 1 is "way too many" in some respects, but get over the whole "atheistic communist" obsession. That issue died 20 years ago.

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 02:25 PM
Yeah, but "Duh!" I was discussing the Constitution. Got another strawman to pull out? I am arguing against those who think the Constitution means we are also free from religion altogether ( like speech and words) particularly when it established a Federalist system.

So dumb it down for me Buc...were we or were we not?

stevieray
04-12-2011, 03:39 PM
listo still trying to twist a personal letter into legislation? that one never gets old,.


J, use your common sense... if you are asking this question, that gives you your answer. considering the first thing GW did after inauguration was go to church, that the capitol was used for rotating religious services, the first schoolbook was zimmers handbook that used the bible to teach kids the alphabet, all the first universities were founded by christians, it's not that hard to discern.

the real question is, when it is deemed invalid, to what extent will our fellow americans go in persecuting Christians....realize that your voice is coming...a voice that says we need to end all religions.

HolyHandgernade
04-12-2011, 04:50 PM
That's not the US Constitution. It's a treaty.

According to Article 6 of the Constitution all signed and ratified treaties become part of "the Supreme Law of the Land", which the Constitution also is.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

HolyHandgernade
04-12-2011, 05:06 PM
Please show me where the Constitution uses the words "separation of Church and State?"

It doesn't. It also does not protect people "from" religion either.

One of those misleading statements. The phrase "separation of Church and State" was explictly used by Jefferson to help elaborate on the nature of the 1st Amendment. It was Jefferson's ideas about the relationship of government and religion that were the basis for which Madison co-chaired the committee to formulate it. The precedent is in Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom adopted in the Virginia State Legislature.

The 1st Amendment does not spearate just "church and state". It uses the more general terms of "religion and government". It does not specify a specific religion or denomination, it uses "religion" in a broad general sense. It was not designed to protect "people" from "religion", it was meant to separate the functions of government (actions) and religion (opinion).

ClevelandBronco
04-12-2011, 05:17 PM
According to Article 6 of the Constitution all signed and ratified treaties become part of "the Supreme Law of the Land", which the Constitution also is.

A cocker spaniels is a dog. A poodle is a dog. A cocker spaniel is not a poodle.

A ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A ratified treaty is not the Constitution. (Though in some sense, the Constitution is a ratified treaty.)

Regardless, your post has shit to do with the question before us.

HolyHandgernade
04-12-2011, 05:23 PM
A cocker spaniels is a dog. A poodle is a dog. A cocker spaniel is not a poodle.

A ratified treaty is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A ratified treaty is not the Constitution. (Though in some sense, the Constitution is a ratified treaty.)

Regardless, your post has shit to do with the question before us.

Yes, because that is how the law works. The Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution also says any ratified treaties become the Supreme Law of the Land. The treaty doesn't have to be the Constitution in order to be the supreme law of the land. I have no idea what significance your point is supposed to convey.

ClevelandBronco
04-12-2011, 06:09 PM
Yes, because that is how the law works. The Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution also says any ratified treaties become the Supreme Law of the Land. The treaty doesn't have to be the Constitution in order to be the supreme law of the land. I have no idea what significance your point is supposed to convey.

It appears that you don't at that. I'm not surprised that you show up infrequently. It's probably rather embarrassing when you do.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 06:28 PM
Interesting how listopencil..blah blah blah

I enter threads that interest me, and post when I have a meaningful comment. You would be wise to follow suit rather than plastering this entire sub forum with your convoluted meanderings.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 06:35 PM
listo still trying to twist a personal letter into legislation? that one never gets old,.



Awesome, the resident ignorant blowhard shows up again. Still refusing to accept factual evidence big guy? Tell you what: I strongly feel that you are free to express whatever twisted opinions you have squeezed out of that melon at the end of your neck, but I will agree with Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the document that he helped author over yours.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 06:37 PM
Got another strawman to pull out?

Strawman? That's hilarious. Still building your case on the "year of our Lord" garbage? Let me know how that works out for you.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 06:39 PM
So dumb it down for me Buc...were we or were we not?

I answered it.

listopencil
04-12-2011, 06:56 PM
C'mon, BEP. You're slipping. This is the time in a thread where you have stopped discussing the topic and have made a snide comment directed at the poster instead (Interesting how listopencil...). Then, when that poster responds in kind, you cry ad hominem. You're getting derailed here.

HolyHandgernade
04-12-2011, 07:14 PM
It appears that you don't at that. I'm not surprised that you show up infrequently. It's probably rather embarrassing when you do.

Sorry, don't mean to keep spotlighting your ignorance. I'll stop embarrassing you.

stevieray
04-12-2011, 07:23 PM
Still refusing to accept factual evidence big guy?

no, that's still you, twistopencil.

I'm sorry the truth rubs you so roughly.

wait, no I'm not....you sowed that seed, enjoy your harvest.

Dave Lane
04-12-2011, 08:04 PM
I find the study of our founding fathers fascinating and agree with your interpretation.This thread was intended to challenge the notion that we were founded with defined Christian principles. I did not intend for it to turn into an attack against those who follow Christianity. You haven’t I just chose this reply to redirect the subject~

How is a discussion of religion an attack on christianity? If thats the case, every thread discussion of a religion is a attack on my beliefs. Every church, every cross, every bumpersticker is an attack on my beliefs.

Get over yourselves. The disagreement that there is a god, or that religion is the superstition I believe it to be, is just that. It is NOT an attack on "your beliefs". It is not an attack on religion, it is an opinion shared by millions. It is a discussion. I really don't care what anyone believes. I find it very sad that people are unable to accept the world as it is. Without magic. The problem is that all children believe in magic and every adult was once a child.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 09:27 PM
I suppose 1 is "way too many" in some respects, but get over the whole "atheistic communist" obsession. That issue died 20 years ago.

It isn't old at all. It's still very much around. They will always exist perhaps. They just don't call themselves "atheistic communist." One term they use is anarcho-socialists. But it's the same damn thing essentially.
I still meet atheistic communists, who despise religion, in particular the RCC, but thoroughly worship the state. It's a "belief" that govt is the solution to most everything. You have a streak in it yourself. Not only Some despise religion so much they must get rid of all traces of it because they don't want anyone to have any higher allegiance than to the state. There's one over at PP. There's a few here. They don't have to be an "atheist" either to worship the state. I mean there is still that enduring trait called "idol" worship too. So we have Liberation Theology out there. Ya' know like Obama's former church and some in the RCC who twist doctrine to the same ends.

You need to get over your obsession with the past because human nature does not change. There will always be this divide between those who accept personal responsibility for their lives much more and those that abnegate such responsibility by allowing the govt to take on more of it.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 06:06 AM
It isn't old at all. It's still very much around. They will always exist perhaps. They just don't call themselves "atheistic communist." One term they use is anarcho-socialists. But it's the same damn thing essentially.
I still meet atheistic communists, who despise religion, in particular the RCC, but thoroughly worship the state. It's a "belief" that govt is the solution to most everything. You have a streak in it yourself. Not only Some despise religion so much they must get rid of all traces of it because they don't want anyone to have any higher allegiance than to the state. There's one over at PP. There's a few here. They don't have to be an "atheist" either to worship the state. I mean there is still that enduring trait called "idol" worship too. So we have Liberation Theology out there. Ya' know like Obama's former church and some in the RCC who twist doctrine to the same ends.

You need to get over your obsession with the past because human nature does not change. There will always be this divide between those who accept personal responsibility for their lives much more and those that abnegate such responsibility by allowing the govt to take on more of it.


Your mixing various philosophies and forms of government into a giant blender and seeing what you can make ooze out of it does not a compelling argument make.

Communism is effectively dead as a viable economic model. If you don't understand the difference between Communism and entitlement programs (whether or not overburdensome to the system), then you need to go read up on them.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 06:28 AM
How is a discussion of religion an attack on christianity? If thats the case, every thread discussion of a religion is a attack on my beliefs. Every church, every cross, every bumpersticker is an attack on my beliefs.

Get over yourselves. The disagreement that there is a god, or that religion is the superstition I believe it to be, is just that. It is NOT an attack on "your beliefs". It is not an attack on religion, it is an opinion shared by millions. It is a discussion. I really don't care what anyone believes. I find it very sad that people are unable to accept the world as it is. Without magic. The problem is that all children believe in magic and every adult was once a child.

First off scooter if you had read my posts you would know I am agnostic and by no stretch a bible defender. Second there is plenty to discuss on the topic I started. You must have had your ass kicked or a girlfriend stolen by a Christian as you get your panties in a bunch every time the subject is broached. If you would like to challenge Christians to a debate about their beliefs why don’t you start a thread doing so. I was merely trying to keep the thread on topic~

KCBOSS1
04-13-2011, 07:14 AM
This could go back and forth for eternity and there are many resources for interpreting the history of our nation many different ways. I have a book on quotes of faith by the founding fathers, many who made controversial statements about God as well as personal conviction statements. Often, they would make controversial statements challenging people to question everything that was hand-me-down doctrine to challenge a personal search. That was the nature of the leaders of the day as well it should be now, especially Christian leaders. They had been force fed everything and were not at all willing to have that happen to them anymore. Many grew in faith later in life, but earlier had been much more questioning it seems.

KCBOSS1
04-13-2011, 07:20 AM
How is a discussion of religion an attack on christianity? If thats the case, every thread discussion of a religion is a attack on my beliefs. Every church, every cross, every bumpersticker is an attack on my beliefs.

Get over yourselves. The disagreement that there is a god, or that religion is the superstition I believe it to be, is just that. It is NOT an attack on "your beliefs". It is not an attack on religion, it is an opinion shared by millions. It is a discussion. I really don't care what anyone believes. I find it very sad that people are unable to accept the world as it is. Without magic. The problem is that all children believe in magic and every adult was once a child.

You're fully entitled. If you are really interested in the facts and not the "magic", check out Ben Stein-Expelled DVD, a book called "I don't have enough faith to be an Athiest" by Geisler & Turek. These are serious evidence oriented products. Because if you're wrong, then logically your life span in light of eternity is seriously a vapor and eternity is a long time to be wrong about this conclusion.

lostcause
04-13-2011, 07:36 AM
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

edit:ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by john adams

Dave Lane
04-13-2011, 07:39 AM
No I find the subject fascinating and sad at the same time. On one hand I consider it the the greatest sales job of all time. That someone can sell nothing to billions of people. I have a product here that can't be seen or smelled, touched, proven in any way whatsoever, and the only thing that backs it up is writings but unknown authors from the bronze age. And yet that they can still sell their product given all these dissadvantages is remarkable.

It's really hard to take people seriously when they talk about magic. I mean like "real" magic. And this was not a quote from you that I am concerned with. It's every thread where there is a discussion of religion. "you are attacking Christians!" no, we are expressing opinions, I could claim they are attacking my "faith" or lack thereof. It's like the ultimate defense mechanism.

It was interesting, some atheist organization took out some billboards that has a simple message. "Dont believe in god? You are not alone." and the ruckus that was raised about the billboard was insane. They had to take them down because people were offended that their faith was being attacked. They played some of the voicemails they got on YouTube and it was amazing the blowback they got from a very innocuous billboard ad.

So the bottom-line is this I suppose. I think organized religion (and I lump them all in here) is something to be fought. That somehow, I hope, I can free a mind from the shackles of religion, away from magic and superstition and to living a live of happiness without the trappings of magic. If a bunch if your friends seriously believed in the Easter bunny what would you do?



First off scooter if you had read my posts you would know I am agnostic and by no stretch a bible defender. Second there is plenty to discuss on the topic I started. You must have had your ass kicked or a girlfriend stolen by a Christian as you get your panties in a bunch every time the subject is broached. If you would like to challenge Christians to a debate about their beliefs why don’t you start a thread doing so. I was merely trying to keep the thread on topic~

BigCatDaddy
04-13-2011, 08:07 AM
So the bottom-line is this I suppose. I think organized religion (and I lump them all in here) is something to be fought. That somehow, I hope, I can free a mind from the shackles of religion, away from magic and superstition and to living a live of happiness without the trappings of magic. If a bunch if your friends seriously believed in the Easter bunny what would you do?

You keep fighting that good fight. Whose mind needs to be freed again?

http://www.newspressnow.com/localnews/26631989/detail.html

As three people were being sentenced for nearly beating a man to death, the victim’s family pleaded for a mixture of justice and forgiveness.

Awaiting their fate, siblings and defendants Isaiah and Fawn Broadus, and co-defendant Shane Nichols, faced the words of the parents of the victim, Ben Taylor, in Judge Daniel Kellogg’s court Wednesday morning.

Expressing a deep sense of grief for their son, who is in rehab with permanent brain damage, Glenn and Heather Taylor said they didn’t relish the idea of the three who caused him pain to be locked up.

“I don’t rest well when I consider all of the potential that is lost,” Mrs. Taylor said.

In previous court appearances, the three admitted to striking Ben Taylor numerous times last June 29, when he showed up uninvited to a Broadus family party. They also confessed to repeatedly punching and kicking the victim while he was down, and leaving him in an alley without calling an ambulance.

Expecting years of recovery for their son and medical bills of at least six figures, resentment or anger for the beating never crept in to the couple’s statements.

“Although we can’t see it now, God will bring all things together,” Mrs. Taylor said.

Both claiming their Christian faith has given them the power to forgive, the Taylors didn’t shy away from the immeasurable emotional damage caused to the family during Ben’s slow recovery.

“The phrase ‘They stomped on his head,’ as recorded in the police report, will ring in our memories forever,” Mr. Taylor said.

Wanting to mirror the attitude of Jesus, Mr. Taylor said, he asked Judge Kellogg for equal parts punishment and forgiveness.

“I know that this happened for a purpose,” he said. “Let this be a balance of consequence and justice with mercy and grace.”

Commending the Taylor family on their forgiving demeanor, Judge Kellogg admitted to being taken aback by it.

“You are a testament to all that is good in people,” he said.

With the exception of Mr. Broadus, who appeared too choked up with emotion, the defendants each looked directly at the Taylors when delivering their final statements before sentencing.

“Since this whole thing broke out, we didn’t think it would go this far,” Ms. Broadus said. “I’m so sorry.”

Echoing similar thoughts, Mr. Broadus kept his speech short. “I’m very regretful and very sorry,” he said.

Prefacing each sentence with the convicted person’s prior record, Judge Kellogg handed each down with varying punishments.

With a lengthier rap sheet, the longest sentence will be served by Mr. Broadus, who pleaded guilty to the class B felony of assault in the first degree, with 12 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Ms. Broadus received a lighter, five-year prison sentence for the class C felony of assault in the first degree, while Mr. Nichols was given 120-day shock detention for the class B felony of assault in the first degree, with the chance of parole following it.

Though Mrs. Taylor wasn’t available for comment following the sentencing, it appeared to be what she had wanted when she spoke in court.

“(We hope) the power of evil will not triumph. Instead, the power of forgiveness will speak the last word,” she said

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 08:12 AM
So the bottom-line is this I suppose. I think organized religion (and I lump them all in here) is something to be fought. That somehow, I hope, I can free a mind from the shackles of religion, away from magic and superstition and to living a live of happiness without the trappings of magic. If a bunch if your friends seriously believed in the Easter bunny what would you do?

Here is where we seriously differ. I think religion certain can, and in fact has, been used and misused to promote evil, suffering, war, etc. etc., but it can also be a strong force for the good. It can help knit and bind people and societies together, provide a moral compass and societal pressures to conform as to basic and fundamental matters (thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.), and can provide comfort and reassurance as to the timeless questions of humanity.

I know, in my heart of hearts, that it's all just bunk. Comical, really, in many ways. But if it gives solace to the grieving widow, comforts the dying man, and helps give structure to the wayward youth, then it's a good thing, and just as many other things can be a very good thing so long as it's not misused, so can religion.

The Catholic Church of the Middle AGes, suppressing thought, science, reason, etc. I would fight against. Organized religion in 2011 poses few or no such dangers to my mind.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2011, 08:15 AM
Your mixing various philosophies and forms of government into a giant blender and seeing what you can make ooze out of it does not a compelling argument make.

Communism is effectively dead as a viable economic model. If you don't understand the difference between Communism and entitlement programs (whether or not overburdensome to the system), then you need to go read up on them.

Communism is not just an economic model. It's also a social model. Marx, for instance, was making social arguments for a new social structure and his economics were the means to that end.
I am not mixing these all into one blender in the manner you are taking it. That's how you are reading and interpreting it. I am listing out those who have a "BELIEF" in BIG govt. Ya' know "belief" in it's magic abilities to deliver us in this life despite the facts, evidence or reality. You need to lay off the strawman arguments and duplicate what I am saying.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2011, 08:31 AM
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

edit:ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by john adams

Key word #1 —> "government"
Key word #2 —> "Christian religion"
Key word #3 —> "principles"

I'd have to go check the OP but I thought he asked if "America" was founded on Judeo-Christian "principles." Now what do these terms mean?

America is a country. This includes the people, it's culture: customs, values, mores, the land and it's boundaries and includes her govt. It isn't necessarily the govt per se.

The United States government is the federal govt. It only has jurisdiction in specific and enumerated areas as founded. This is not based on the Christian religion but it's not an absolute that some Judeo-Christian principles don't creep into it. It depends on what you mean by principle.

"A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed." ~ wikipedia

The Constitution is the structure and policies telling our govt how it is to operate. The kind we go was an "inevitable consequence" of the principles stated in the Declaration of Indpendence which is a Natural Law document. Our govt was, originally anyway, based on natural law. Judeo-Christian principles do have natural law in them too. The whole idea that the Constitution was written primarily to restrain the United States government was one such principle. It allows religion to flourish in the country as a natural right by not having an "established" church. This bothers "anti-religionists." The religions that flourished in this country stemmed from the Judeo- Christian religions. So it's an indirect consequence of freedom with men using their free will to do right or wrong, good or bad.

There are others too: like protection of innocent life, and even some ides in the structure. I don't have the time to cover them all.


Anyhow, this is how I see it. Feel free to disagree.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 08:33 AM
Communism is not just an economic model. It's also a social model. And I am not mixing these all into one blender in the manner you are taking it. I am listing out those who have a "BELIEF" in BIG govt. Ya' know "belief" in it's magic abilities to deliver us in this life despite the facts. You need to lay off the strawman arguments and duplicate what I am saying.


I couldn't duplicate your babble if I tried. Theoretical Communism might be a social model as well, but it's certainly not one that has ever existed outside some tiny little commune wherever.

Belief in a robust federal government isn't Communism. Sorry.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2011, 08:36 AM
I couldn't duplicate your babble if I tried.
Thank you for admitting you have conceded the argument.

Theoretical Communism might be a social model as well, but it's certainly not one that has ever existed outside some tiny little commune wherever.

Belief in a robust federal government isn't Communism. Sorry.

I didn't say belief in robust govt was Communism. You put that there on your own. I didn't even use the word "robust"....I used "big." Again, one reason I rarely engage you is constant use of strawman.
You're babbling too. Just as much a waste of time as you consider mine.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 08:41 AM
Here is where we seriously differ. I think religion certain can, and in fact has, been used and misused to promote evil, suffering, war, etc. etc., but it can also be a strong force for the good. It can help knit and bind people and societies together, provide a moral compass and societal pressures to conform as to basic and fundamental matters (thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.), and can provide comfort and reassurance as to the timeless questions of humanity.

I know, in my heart of hearts, that it's all just bunk. Comical, really, in many ways. But if it gives solace to the grieving widow, comforts the dying man, and helps give structure to the wayward youth, then it's a good thing, and just as many other things can be a very good thing so long as it's not misused, so can religion.

The Catholic Church of the Middle AGes, suppressing thought, science, reason, etc. I would fight against. Organized religion in 2011 poses few or no such dangers to my mind.

It is surprising to me how similar our beliefs are on the original topic and religion, when in most cases we see the rest of the world much differently~

BucEyedPea
04-13-2011, 08:44 AM
It is surprising to me how similar our beliefs are on the original topic and religion, when in most cases we see the rest of the world much differently~

What I see in your posts is that you accept more liberty which requires more personal responsibility. This to me is an underlying principle that our govt was based on and was once a more common value in this country's people.

I just make some distinction between the country America and it's national govt was all I was trying to say.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 08:57 AM
It is surprising to me how similar our beliefs are on the original topic and religion, when in most cases we see the rest of the world much differently~

I agree. You should definitely reconsider your thinking on other topics since you seem to have somehow gone astray on those...


:p

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 09:01 AM
Thank you for admitting you have conceded the argument.

:rolleyes: There we go with the babbling again.



I didn't say belief in robust govt was Communism. You put that there on your own. I didn't even use the word "robust"....I used "big." Again, one reason I rarely engage you is constant use of strawman.
You're babbling too. Just as much a waste of time as you consider mine.

Sorry, didn't realize that paraphrasing was such a crime. Fine, "big government" isn't Communism either, until it gets to be, literally, all-consuming.

I wonder what percentage of your posts use the phrase deflection, strawman and the other stupidities you rely on to dodge and evade the debates that you can't really deal with very well.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 09:01 AM
I agree. You should definitely reconsider your thinking on other topics since you seem to have somehow gone astray on those...


:p

Strange I was thinking of the old saying " even a broken clock is right twice a day" I guess there may be hope for you yet ;)

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 09:30 AM
What I see in your posts is that you accept more liberty which requires more personal responsibility. This to me is an underlying principle that our govt was based on and was once a more common value in this country's people.

I just make some distinction between the country America and it's national govt was all I was trying to say.

I stand for honor, integrity and honesty. I believe that was the foundation our government was founded on. I do not believe it was based on religion at all. It has failed in the bold principles on some levels from the beginning. It has become a complete embarrassment at this point . I feel a person should hold to these values and to do so under the coercion that you will be rewarded in the afterlife as your reasoning lacks genuine conviction in my opinion~

Dave Lane
04-13-2011, 10:42 AM
I agree to the extent that fundamentalism is denied it's chance to regain its former "glory" And in lumping all religions into the pot I include Islam which at the current time are the most extreme followers of their "faith". If the current reign of religion in the US never becomes stronger then yes I'm not overly concerned either. There is however, a very strong current fundamentalist movement that wants to include creationism in the classroom and teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old and more. This is the religion aspect I want to fight against.

Here is where we seriously differ. I think religion certain can, and in fact has, been used and misused to promote evil, suffering, war, etc. etc., but it can also be a strong force for the good. It can help knit and bind people and societies together, provide a moral compass and societal pressures to conform as to basic and fundamental matters (thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.), and can provide comfort and reassurance as to the timeless questions of humanity.

I know, in my heart of hearts, that it's all just bunk. Comical, really, in many ways. But if it gives solace to the grieving widow, comforts the dying man, and helps give structure to the wayward youth, then it's a good thing, and just as many other things can be a very good thing so long as it's not misused, so can religion.

The Catholic Church of the Middle AGes, suppressing thought, science, reason, etc. I would fight against. Organized religion in 2011 poses few or no such dangers to my mind.

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2011, 12:35 PM
...There is however, a very strong current fundamentalist movement that wants to include creationism in the classroom and teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old and more. This is the religion aspect I want to fight against.

Very bold indeed. Thank you for your service.

BigCatDaddy
04-13-2011, 02:00 PM
Very bold indeed. Thank you for your service.

He's a F*&$N soldier!

Dave Lane
04-13-2011, 02:10 PM
Very bold indeed. Thank you for your service.

You are quite welcome. I live to serve.

Garcia Bronco
04-14-2011, 12:15 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution



The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine. The group of men involved in the writing of the Constitution are generally referred to as the "framers".


No single individual wrote it. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. After the political questions were hashed out a 'committee of style' was formed to put the ideas into formal words. It is generally accepted that Gouverneur Morris created most of the actual wording included in the final draft from the Committee of Style.


The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.


The person most associated with authoring the US Constitution was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. Primary Author: James Madison (drafted the Virginia Plan). He is known as "The Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787. The constitution wasn't passed until 1788

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "



http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

James Madison is the one who wrote the Bill of Rights and I wouldn't get to wrapped around the axl on Jefferson's letters. It's well known that he re-wrote or corrected many of them before he died. Adams, Washingon, and Madison all did the same.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2011, 01:22 PM
Jefferson was just more agnostic than other Framers. The Framers were more than those three.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2011, 01:27 PM
I stand for honor, integrity and honesty. I believe that was the foundation our government was founded on. I do not believe it was based on religion at all. It has failed in the bold principles on some levels from the beginning. It has become a complete embarrassment at this point . I feel a person should hold to these values and to do so under the coercion that you will be rewarded in the afterlife as your reasoning lacks genuine conviction in my opinion~

I don't think it was founded on honor or integrity at all either. I believe it was founded on Natural Rights. Thus we got a Constitution that was written to primarily restrain the national govt to allow those Natural Rights. It's a negative rights document.

I don't think it was founded on religion either. I don't know if that's how you took what I wrote. I just don't see absolutes working here. ( They are pretty much unachievable anyway.) I am in-between the two positions but use the word "principle" as it's meant.

I thought the thread title was if it was founded on Judeo-Christian "principles." I don't see that as quite the same as being founded on "religion....just that some Judeo-Christian principles about man and his nature were taken into consideration for the basis for writing it the way it was.

Did you know that Jefferson studied the govt structure of the Israelites which is contained in the structure we got? Well it's there. There's a reason for it. It's stems from Moses having people come to him with his problems that he couldn't handle it all. So he broke things down into a hierarchy with sub-groups having their own zones of control. That's what ours is based on and is called a Federalist system. A Federalist system allows the certain zones, called states, to have official churches and local laws are allowed to be based on the standards of the communities. Since most were Christian at that time most laws were based on their principles and values. Then the 14 Amendment came along and slowly over time it eroded much of federalism using the bogus incorporation doctrine.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2011, 01:32 PM
"in Order to form a more perfect union" that line makes little sense to me~

I'd gather that's in reference to the Articles of Confederation not being a strong enough union. So a convention was called to amend them. Instead we got a runaway convention scrapping them eventhough they were written in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2011, 01:39 PM
Well I think the Founding Fathers were walking a fine line. I think many of them did have Christian type beliefs but they wanted to move as far away from the English Monarchy as possible. The Constitution was ordained by the people, where as the King had his power "Ordained from God" which made him King.

I think they had to make a distinction between a new government and the monarchy or else people would think "the new people are same as the old people, why are we rebelling again?"

The Constitution was not ordained by the people. It was the result of a runaway convention to amend the Article of Confederation and it was only certain men that decided the articles needed amending and later that they were not good enough. Then it was ratified by the states. It was not ratified by a national plebiscite of the people despite what the opening seems to say.

BucEyedPea
04-14-2011, 02:01 PM
One of those misleading statements. The phrase "separation of Church and State" was explictly used by Jefferson to help elaborate on the nature of the 1st Amendment. It was Jefferson's ideas about the relationship of government and religion that were the basis for which Madison co-chaired the committee to formulate it. The precedent is in Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom adopted in the Virginia State Legislature.

The 1st Amendment does not spearate just "church and state". It uses the more general terms of "religion and government". It does not specify a specific religion or denomination, it uses "religion" in a broad general sense. It was not designed to protect "people" from "religion", it was meant to separate the functions of government (actions) and religion (opinion).

Jefferson wasn't there. He sent books about various past govts and such. His letter to that Baptist church applies to his views on religion and govt which he also felt were local matters. His letter was really about keeping religion free from govt. You are relying on the 1947 interpretation of the "establishment" clause.

There is some degree of difference between some of the Framers....some being more agnostic. So long as the Federal govt didn't threaten the state's powers there really is no issue. The rest of your interpretation omits so much it would take hours to correct. For instance you say it uses the terms "religion and government." It used the term "Government" with a capital letter which is referring to the national/federal govt—not government in general. It does not use the word "religion" alone but as " establishment of religion " that means a church. It it does not prohibit the "free excercise of" either. It also says Congress shall make no law pertaining to" such an "establishment." NO law means just that....and it is addressing the federal congress.

Madison, who was more agnostic, was mindful of the fact that some states had official establishments of religion and he did not want to step on the state's toes. That would have been a sure guarantee of no ratification back then. So the problem I have with your argument as well as others who subscribe to it is that they never differentiate WHICH govt. This DOES matter and it mattered to the Framers.

General note—These are the principle personalities at the Convention:

Ben Franklin
James Madison
Edmund Randolph
Alexander Hamilton
Gouverneur Morris
Robert Morris
George Mason
George Wythe
Jame Wilson
John Dickenson
Roger Sherman
John Rutledge
Charles Pinckney


Hamilton was at odds with all of them not just the one's I listed.

HolyHandgernade
04-14-2011, 08:29 PM
Jefferson wasn't there. He sent books about various past govts and such. His letter to that Baptist church applies to his views on religion and govt which he also felt were local matters. His letter was really about keeping religion free from govt. You are relying on the 1947 interpretation of the "establishment" clause.

I don't remember claiming Jefferson was there. I was simply condensing the relationship Jefferson had through his own fight in the Virginia Statute, which Madison eventually took the baton from. There is little doubt Madison and Jefferson were of close mind in this regard. It matters not if you say you want religion free from government or government free from religion. In order for either one of them to be free they must each be separated.

James Madison wrote, "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" (William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555).

There is some degree of difference between some of the Framers....some being more agnostic. So long as the Federal govt didn't threaten the state's powers there really is no issue. The rest of your interpretation omits so much it would take hours to correct.

That's why they are called "summaries". Perhaps you haven't noticed but the attention span of most readers doesn't suffice much after three paragraphs.

For instance you say it uses the terms "religion and government." It used the term "Government" with a capital letter which is referring to the national/federal govt—not government in general. It does not use the word "religion" alone but as " establishment of religion " that means a church. It it does not prohibit the "free excercise of" either. It also says Congress shall make no law pertaining to" such an "establishment." NO law means just that....and it is addressing the federal congress.

Well, if this is your attempt at "corrections" I'll pass on any future ones. You seem to have a penchant for picking things out of order so you can make up the meaning as you go. Your point about the importance of the distinctions of the capital "G" in government is really inconsequential. Most people understand the U.S. Constitution applies to the Federal level of Government, this is why each state has their own Constitution. It should be noted, that every colony, of their own accord, eventually adopted a similar clause into their State Constitutions. So, when I say "government in a general sense" I assume people know I mean the Federal Government and that the "general sense" means it applies across that board (legislative, executive, judicial). So, let's get to the "establishment" part.

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.

As I assume most know, a "clause" is an independent thought. The first amendment actually contains six clauses, or independent thoughts, linked to a connecting statement. That statement being: "Congress shall make no law". Thus, one could rewrite the first amendment as six distinct sentences:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof (*).
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
4. Congress shall make no law (*) of the press
5. Congress shall make no law (*) the right of the people peaceably to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law (*) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, where we have a (*), we have an incomplete sentence that can only be solved by referencing the punctuation, verbs and conjunctions in the run on sentence. For example (3) is a complete sentence, but (4) is not. We have to take in the punctuation ( ; ) and the conjunction (or) and the verb or verb phrase (abridging the freedom) in order to make (4), a well as (5) and (6 ) complete sentences:

4. Congress shall make no law (abridging the freedom) of the press.
5. Congress shall make no law (abridging) the right of the people peaceably to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law (abridging the freedom) to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This brings us to the first two:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof (*).

What is different here is that the (*) notes that the reference "thereof" needs a precedent in the previous clause in order to be identified. Those words are "of religion". Not "a religion" nor "a church" nor a "state church". Just "religion". Now, what did "an establishment" mean at this time? It basically meant a tax or penalty enforced by the government. It is only through this measure that government can coerce your obedience. So, this clause is your "freedom from religion" in the sense that the government cannot exact monies nor demand attendance or loyalty to ANY religion. An independent religion can bug you all they want, but you are under no legal pressure to acquiesce to their request. That is what freedom from religion means.

So, when we fill in the sentence structure of the second clause it reads:

2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise (of religion).

This your freedom to form your own opinion regarding religion. In order to have this freedom "of religion", however, you must first have a freedom "from religion" and you must have it from the only entity which has the legal power to coerce you. By keeping them separated "government (Congress)" and "religion", it ensures your freedom to both. The key is the conjunctive word "or" as it connects these two independent thoughts as opposed to the semicolon after the second clause which denotes to the reader a different line of thought. That is, denoting the difference between prohibiting and the subsequent "abridgings".

Just for fun, we'll add you interpretation ("a church") and see if the sentence structure, without deforming it, still makes sense:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (a church), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So tell me, how can one logically freely exercise (worship at) this church you just prohibited yourself from creating in the first clause? Words mean things in legal documents. If you substitute "a religion" you get the same conundrum: How do you freely exercise "a religion" you just prohibited yourself from creating?

You can't and makes the sentence non sensical. Only when the word "religion" is used as a generality can the sentence make sense. This is because "religion" is a collection of unrelated opinions about the subject, whereas "a religion" or "a church" is a specific structure of thought or organization.

stevieray
04-14-2011, 08:40 PM
Their intentions were to keep the state out of religion, not religion out of the state.

Dave Lane
04-14-2011, 08:49 PM
I'm sorry that's a wrong answer, Ed tell him what he would have won if he had gotten it right.

HolyHandgernade
04-14-2011, 08:56 PM
Their intentions were to keep the state out of religion, not religion out of the state.

Let' say you wanted to make chocolate chip cookies and the directions said:

It is OK to mix the chocolate chips with batter but you must not mix the batter with the chocolate chips.

Exactly how do you make that happen?

Brock
04-14-2011, 09:00 PM
Their intentions were to keep the state out of religion, not religion out of the state.

Hopefully you won't mind when Muslims start getting elected in significant numbers.

stevieray
04-14-2011, 09:21 PM
Hopefully you won't mind when Muslims start getting elected in significant numbers.

I said quite some time ago that that is the route that is going to be used bring us down.

stevieray
04-14-2011, 09:25 PM
Let' say you wanted to make chocolate chip cookies and the directions said:

It is OK to mix the chocolate chips with batter but you must not mix the batter with the chocolate chips.

Exactly how do you make that happen?

what are the chips without the batter? just chips.

what is the batter without the chips? still cookies.

HolyHandgernade
04-14-2011, 09:26 PM
what are the chips without the batter? just chips.

what is the batter without the chips. still cookies.

Alright, that clears it up for me.

RedNeckRaider
04-16-2011, 07:27 AM
I don't think it was founded on honor or integrity at all either. I believe it was founded on Natural Rights. Thus we got a Constitution that was written to primarily restrain the national govt to allow those Natural Rights. It's a negative rights document.

I don't think it was founded on religion either. I don't know if that's how you took what I wrote. I just don't see absolutes working here. ( They are pretty much unachievable anyway.) I am in-between the two positions but use the word "principle" as it's meant.

I thought the thread title was if it was founded on Judeo-Christian "principles." I don't see that as quite the same as being founded on "religion....just that some Judeo-Christian principles about man and his nature were taken into consideration for the basis for writing it the way it was.

Did you know that Jefferson studied the govt structure of the Israelites which is contained in the structure we got? Well it's there. There's a reason for it. It's stems from Moses having people come to him with his problems that he couldn't handle it all. So he broke things down into a hierarchy with sub-groups having their own zones of control. That's what ours is based on and is called a Federalist system. A Federalist system allows the certain zones, called states, to have official churches and local laws are allowed to be based on the standards of the communities. Since most were Christian at that time most laws were based on their principles and values. Then the 14 Amendment came along and slowly over time it eroded much of federalism using the bogus incorporation doctrine.


A person could devote a lifetime to Thomas Jefferson and his studies. I share almost the same moral values as most Christians. I by no means I formed these values based on Christianity.To say that my exposure to Christianity had no influence on me would be silly. A persons thought process is an accumulation of ones personal experiences. When our founding fathers crafted our government I believe their intention was to put in place restrictions to avoid allowing it to become what it is today. This thought process of course brought similarities from other societies and different ideologies. The original post was inspired by statements often made by the religious right, and their claims that our country was founded based on their beliefs. I on the other hand do not believe it was~

Speaking of Jefferson below is one of my favorite quotes~

John F. Kennedy - Describing a dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962
- ...probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.

stevieray
04-16-2011, 09:42 AM
. The original post was inspired by statements often made by the religious right, and their claims that our country was founded based on their beliefs. I on the other hand do not believe it was~

.

....and you wuld be incorrect in that assessment. Read the 5000 Year Leap.

...the restrictions you spoke of were put in place for the state, not religion.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2011, 10:02 AM
When our founding fathers crafted our government I believe their intention was to put in place restrictions to avoid allowing it to become what it is today.

What it is today? The trend has been toward less religion in the public arena than back then— courtesy of our central govt—or even since 1935. For instance the Supreme Court building displays Moses with the Decalogue but today that same court has shown hostility to religion, in particular Christianity, and even taken powers not even in the Constitution to tell schools within states that they can NOT mention or post that very same Decalogue. This would have been considered an outrage by our Framers since the states back then had official "establishments of religion" and general laws, including morality, were left to the states.

May I ask what you are referring to though when you say restrictions on allowing to become today? I agree if you mean the central govt encroaching on more areas, including what was left to the states and the people—but that would allow religion to be dealt with at those levels too. Also, you are using the word "govt" now when originally you used the word "country."

My Earlier Post # 143

The country known as America — yes
The U. S govt — not necessarily

To clarify I almost said "no" to the second one, but thought it wasn't a clear absolute. So I put in "not necessarily." Again, to me the country is more about the actual people, customs, mores, culture, values, practices, land, fashions etc. etc. To some degree govt in that it reflects these things like holidays and local laws. So some govt is included but the emphasis is more on the people and what they're like. So my emphasis was less on the "state" as opposed to the word "nation" which is more about the state but includes the country. Most of the general power and thus the general laws, were originally set up for the states or to the people. Do you catch my drift on what I was trying to communicate by posting this? ( You don't have to agree just understand what I am sayin.') I have separated the two for my purposes.

This thought process of course brought similarities from other societies and different ideologies. The original post was inspired by statements often made by the religious right, and their claims that our country was founded based on their beliefs. I on the other hand do not believe it was~
You said Judeo-Christian "principles" originally though. That's what I responded to—not beliefs per se.

For instance, in the original post you mention God not being put on our currency or the Pledge until the 1950's. Yet, many of the Framers were Deists and Jefferson's own Declaration proclaims a "Creator" and that it is "self evident" that our rights come from a Creator. Madison was involved in setting up the chaplaincy in the congress. George Washington set aside a national day of prayer for a first Thanksgiving holiday in 1795. In 1775, the first day of prayer was declared when the Continental Congress "designated a time for prayer in forming a new nation." In 1783 "...the conclusion of the Revolutionary War marked a temporary end to the National Day of Prayer." These events are part of our founding—not just the runaway Constitutional Convention.

I know Jefferson didn't support the idea of "national" days of prayer but that was him. Madison even set one up. Later he sided with Jefferson more but eventually conceded that this could not be an absolute. I agree with that. Madison was dealing with people who thought otherwise or we wouldn't have seen these national days of prayer back then. You cannot speak for every Framer, many of whom were Deists and some who were Christians. Jefferson still thought that our rights came from a higher source than a govt put together by men and that these rights pre-exist govt. Just read his own words in the Declaration. This is a KEY founding principle or pillar. It is so KEY it is what separates our founding from just about every other govt particularly Europe where they get their rights from govt. To my knowledge, we're the ONLY govt that was established with this idea. It grants greater liberty and freedom from govt—that includes govt intruding on religion. The latter is what France just did by outlawing the Burqa. Yet, many of the Christians here, support that idea.

BTW what different "ideologies" did the Framers bring to the Constitutional Convention besides the general notion that they did not want a national govt to be as intrusive as the one they just got rid of?

Just to clarify, I was simply referring to how our govt was structured—in a way to diffuse power and keep most of it local and closer to the people. One national govt, far away, cannot even begin to understand the problems or the people in so many areas. It just doesn't work if you're goal is to have a free country.

Speaking of intrusive and tyrannical, our govt today is doing far more in that sense than the British govt was doing back then.

Speaking of Jefferson below is one of my favorite quotes~

John F. Kennedy - Describing a dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962
- ...probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.

Jefferson is but one Founder who was not at the Constitutional Convention to be able to make or defend his point on religion. Other than that, I am a supporter of Jefferson far more than the Hamiltonians in each party—many who populate this board on both the left and the right. Jefferson felt the religion issue was something for the states to deal with. Each state to it's own.


Bottom Line: You can find historical facts to support either side of this argument. It's not a black & white issue as some seem to think. It's more a matter of degree.

RedNeckRaider
04-16-2011, 12:56 PM
What it is today? The trend has been toward less religion in the public arena than back then— courtesy of our central govt—or even since 1935. For instance the Supreme Court building displays Moses with the Decalogue but today that same court has shown hostility to religion, in particular Christianity, and even taken powers not even in the Constitution to tell schools within states that they can NOT mention or post that very same Decalogue. This would have been considered an outrage by our Framers since the states back then had official "establishments of religion" and general laws, including morality, were left to the states.

May I ask what you are referring to though when you say restrictions on allowing to become today? I agree if you mean the central govt encroaching on more areas, including what was left to the states and the people—but that would allow religion to be dealt with at those levels too. Also, you are using the word "govt" now when originally you used the word "country."

My Earlier Post # 143



To clarify I almost said "no" to the second one, but thought it wasn't a clear absolute. So I put in "not necessarily." Again, to me the country is more about the actual people, customs, mores, culture, values, practices, land, fashions etc. etc. To some degree govt in that it reflects these things like holidays and local laws. So some govt is included but the emphasis is more on the people and what they're like. So my emphasis was less on the "state" as opposed to the word "nation" which is more about the state but includes the country. Most of the general power and thus the general laws, were originally set up for the states or to the people. Do you catch my drift on what I was trying to communicate by posting this? ( You don't have to agree just understand what I am sayin.') I have separated the two for my purposes.


You said Judeo-Christian "principles" originally though. That's what I responded to—not beliefs per se.

For instance, in the original post you mention God not being put on our currency or the Pledge until the 1950's. Yet, many of the Framers were Deists and Jefferson's own Declaration proclaims a "Creator" and that it is "self evident" that our rights come from a Creator. Madison was involved in setting up the chaplaincy in the congress. George Washington set aside a national day of prayer for a first Thanksgiving holiday in 1795. In 1775, the first day of prayer was declared when the Continental Congress "designated a time for prayer in forming a new nation." In 1783 "...the conclusion of the Revolutionary War marked a temporary end to the National Day of Prayer." These events are part of our founding—not just the runaway Constitutional Convention.

I know Jefferson didn't support the idea of "national" days of prayer but that was him. Madison even set one up. Later he sided with Jefferson more but eventually conceded that this could not be an absolute. I agree with that. Madison was dealing with people who thought otherwise or we wouldn't have seen these national days of prayer back then. You cannot speak for every Framer, many of whom were Deists and some who were Christians. Jefferson still thought that our rights came from a higher source than a govt put together by men and that these rights pre-exist govt. Just read his own words in the Declaration. This is a KEY founding principle or pillar. It is so KEY it is what separates our founding from just about every other govt particularly Europe where they get their rights from govt. To my knowledge, we're the ONLY govt that was established with this idea. It grants greater liberty and freedom from govt—that includes govt intruding on religion. The latter is what France just did by outlawing the Burqa. Yet, many of the Christians here, support that idea.

BTW what different "ideologies" did the Framers bring to the Constitutional Convention besides the general notion that they did not want a national govt to be as intrusive as the one they just got rid of?

Just to clarify, I was simply referring to how our govt was structured—in a way to diffuse power and keep most of it local and closer to the people. One national govt, far away, cannot even begin to understand the problems or the people in so many areas. It just doesn't work if you're goal is to have a free country.

Speaking of intrusive and tyrannical, our govt today is doing far more in that sense than the British govt was doing back then.



Jefferson is but one Founder who was not at the Constitutional Convention to be able to make or defend his point on religion. Other than that, I am a supporter of Jefferson far more than the Hamiltonians in each party—many who populate this board on both the left and the right. Jefferson felt the religion issue was something for the states to deal with. Each state to it's own.


Bottom Line: You can find historical facts to support either side of this argument. It's not a black & white issue as some seem to think. It's more a matter of degree.

Girl discussing things with you is like debating a treadmill~

HolyHandgernade
04-16-2011, 01:16 PM
Madison was involved in setting up the chaplaincy in the congress.

What on earth do you base this on?

James Madison wrote in Detached Memoranda:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Congress would suffice for the purpose? How just would it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expense of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Executive or judiciary branch of the Government. ...

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one.

How is this helping?

go bowe
04-16-2011, 01:22 PM
Girl discussing things with you is like debating a treadmill~a treadmill with some screws loose...

HolyHandgernade
04-16-2011, 01:25 PM
In 1775, the first day of prayer was declared when the Continental Congress "designated a time for prayer in forming a new nation."

Proponents of government sponsored prayer claim that the Founding Fathers allowed formal public prayer in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. No, the record states that the proposal failed "without any vote on the motion" (Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 1:452). In fact, "in the Franklin MS, the following note is added:--'The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary'" (Farrand, 1:452, n.15).

James Madison discussed "the proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention" and writes that reports of Franklin's motion being approved by the Convention are "erroneous" (Writings, 9:529).

Proponents assert that the first Continental Congress immediately on its assembling adopted a resolution calling for prayer at the opening of each daily session and designated an Episcopal clergyman to act as chaplain of Congress. True, but "the person selected, after serving as chaplain two years, resigned, went over to the British, and departed to England" (Church, State, and Freedom, 1967, p. 120).

The First Congress in 1789 hired chaplains and required that "two Chaplains of different denominations . . . shall interchange weekly." However, the decision was not unanimous. James Madison said, "it was not with my approbation [approval] , that . . . they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the Nat. Treasury" (Writings, 9:100).

Further, Madison asked: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? . . . In strictness the answer to both points must be in the negative. . . . The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily noticeable] violation of . . . constitutional principles" (William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:558).

In 1962 the U. S. Supreme Court correctly ruled that a New York State Board of Regents written and required "prayer" was unconstitutional because: "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people" (Engel at 370 U. S. 425). In 1963 the Court wrote: "The command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality . . . does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those affected" (Abington at 374 U. S. 225).

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/prayer.html

BucEyedPea
04-16-2011, 01:25 PM
Girl discussing things with you is like debating a treadmill~

Well, you responded so I thought I'd try to clarify my position and get more clarification on yours.
To me words have meanings. Otherwise we're not communicating about the same things.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2011, 01:27 PM
HH I've argued this over with you before on Madison...and used quotes in the past that showed what I meant and he conceded there's no absolute hard line eventually. It's easy to take Madison out of context and he actually gave mixed signals. He still did set up the chaplaincy despite his opinion. So his actions show these mixed signals and how he eventually concluded it couldn't be the absolute hard line you're claiming to support your own hard line. Plus, he changed some of his positions, more so in regard to things Hamilton was doing.


"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 civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points..."-- Madison

I'm not going to go round and round again on about Madison when there bits of truth on both sides of the argument. Because it will be a treadmill as RNR claims.

HolyHandgernade
04-16-2011, 01:39 PM
I know Jefferson didn't support the idea of "national" days of prayer but that was him. Madison even set one up. Later he sided with Jefferson more but eventually conceded that this could not be an absolute. I agree with that. Madison was dealing with people who thought otherwise or we wouldn't have seen these national days of prayer back then. You cannot speak for every Framer, many of whom were Deists and some who were Christians. Jefferson still thought that our rights came from a higher source than a govt put together by men and that these rights pre-exist govt. Just read his own words in the Declaration. This is a KEY founding principle or pillar. It is so KEY it is what separates our founding from just about every other govt particularly Europe where they get their rights from govt. To my knowledge, we're the ONLY govt that was established with this idea. It grants greater liberty and freedom from govt—that includes govt intruding on religion. The latter is what France just did by outlawing the Burqa. Yet, many of the Christians here, support that idea.

Q: If James Madison really believed in "separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States" (his words from his essay "Monopolies," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555), why did he issue presidential proclamations for national days of prayer?

A: Madison addressed this question as a "deviation from the strict principle . . . in the eye of the Constitution" in his July 10, 1822, letter to Edward Livingston in terms of the distinction between "the language of injunction" (required) and language "without any penal sanction enforcing the worship" (voluntary). No such proclamations were issued by President Jefferson or during the first four years of Madison's term. However, under the duress of the War of 1812 President Madison was being pressured by Congress--congressional resolutions--to issue a proclamation as Washington and Adams had done. During the years 1812 through 1815 ("the war in which He has been pleased to permit"), Madison signed proclamations and in 1822 gave the following explanation:

Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes according to their own faith & forms. . . . Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries . . . in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov[ernment] & Religion neither can be duly supported. . . . Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.

The significance of the distinction is between a resolution (or a nonbinding suggestion) and a law. Congress shall make no "law"; but, there is no constitutional prohibition against congressional resolutions.


http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/prayer&chap.html

The play on words is incredible. BEP does a careful sidestep in asserting the power of the DoI:

Just read his own words in the Declaration. This is a KEY founding principle or pillar.

She avoids saying document, because, as I am sure she is aware, it has no legal standing, the Constitution is the "founding document". But, she tries to shift the importance to the DoI calling it "KEY" because it is one of the loosest hopes in which people attempt to tie the founding of the US to a divine principle or idea. If you're willing to indulge that, they will quickly move to the Creator being the "God of the Bible" even though the text does not support it and the three principle architects (Jefferson, Franklin and Paine) were either Deists or Unitarians.

Jefferson still thought that our rights came from a higher source than a govt put together by men and that these rights pre-exist govt.

So? He also thought along the lines of many Deists that man's lot was not the subject of divine favor or whim. Men were responsible for their own lot in this life. That is why the Constitution calls itself "the Supreme Law of the Land". "Supreme" means "nothing higher". It is not proclaiming something "pre-exists" it or needs reference towards, it is now the "supreme".

BucEyedPea
04-16-2011, 01:40 PM
Nope. Madison gave mixed signals in actions and in words. He said and did many things and changed some of his positions as well.

I also did not say the Dec was part of the Constitution....I said it was part of our nation's founding principles aka a pillar. The founding of the "country" though is made up of many preceding events. Do you know what that means? It means these are underlying principles which played out at the Convention with arguments against giving the Feds too much power and swallowing the states. Things like that. The Constitution was written in a way to carry out those principles by devising a structure of govt that restrained the federal govt primarily which allowed for liberty. That allowed for states to have official state churches. It was a federalist position.

Nor did I say anything about Creator being the God of the Bible. You are extrapolating that on your own and creating a strawmen. You have a 1947 interpretation.

I mentioned Jefferson, with regard to RedNeck because that's who he was citing. My only purpose was to show that Jefferson considered it self-evident that rights came from a Creator or a higher source that precedes govt. That does not conflict with being a deist. I've said before that can be applied to anyone even if they didn't believe in God in many earlier debates. Read it in that context.

RedNeckRaider
04-16-2011, 02:47 PM
Well, you responded so I thought I'd try to clarify my position and get more clarification on yours.
To me words have meanings. Otherwise we're not communicating about the same things.

At this point you seem to be splitting hairs. I have stated my position and so have most in this thread. I have seen nothing to change my mind that the religious right uses revisionist history. As to you pointing out Jefferson (I quoted more than him in the thread) Yes the word creator appears however it was a revision of his original writing.

The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

stevieray
04-16-2011, 04:51 PM
At this point you seem to be splitting hairs. I have stated my position and so have most in this thread. I have seen nothing to change my mind that the religious right uses revisionist history. As to you pointing out Jefferson (I quoted more than him in the thread) Yes the word creator appears however it was a revision of his original writing.

The original version as written by Jefferson no longer exists but has been reconstructed from various copies that do exist as follows with regards to the topic: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

it was originally life, liberty and property.

seen nothing? don't think so.

RedNeckRaider
04-16-2011, 05:08 PM
it was originally life, liberty and property.

seen nothing? don't think so.

I have seen nothing to convince me that our country was founded with Christianity in mind as the religious right continues to claim. I have seen actions by our government at a later time to integrate the two especially in the 50s. I believe there was an applicable effort to establish a separation of religion and our government which I support. If your are referring to Jefferson I think that there is plenty of evidence he was not a Christian~

Brock
04-16-2011, 07:54 PM
I have seen nothing to convince me that our country was founded with Christianity in mind as the religious right continues to claim. I have seen actions by our government at a later time to integrate the two especially in the 50s. I believe there was an applicable effort to establish a separation of religion and our government which I support. If your are referring to Jefferson I think that there is plenty of evidence he was not a Christian~

That's because it wasn't founded with Christianity in mind. The big thinkers who founded this country were Deists.

RedNeckRaider
04-17-2011, 08:21 AM
That's because it wasn't founded with Christianity in mind. The big thinkers who founded this country were Deists.

That is true to a point. There was also very large number of men who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or were consider influential in the founding of our country that clearly identified themselves as Christians. It is my contention that these men put aside their beliefs on all sides to provide a separation between our government and personal ideologies and religions~