# The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity



## LilOlLady (Jul 4, 2010)

*The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar

*Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians *They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. .... Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural .... He led the men who turned America from an English colony into a self-governing nation. ...
*Thomas Jefferson - John Adams - Benjamin Franklin - Thomas Paine*freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html - Cached - Similar


----------



## LilOlLady (Jul 4, 2010)

James Madison;
"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" 
-letter to Thomas Jefferson

John Adams;
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." 

Thomas Jefferson;
"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." 
- "Notes on Virginia" 

Ben Franklin;
"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." 
- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75 

Thomas Paine;
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." 

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians


----------



## Oddball (Jul 4, 2010)

They were deists, nonetheless.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Which God were they referring to in all of their writings ?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 4, 2010)

WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?

Has someone said that we were?

Our founders had such a jaded view of Christianity, after being subjects of the Church of England, there is no reason why they would model this country after that standard.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

The John Adams and John Hancock: 
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
&#8220; The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity&#8230; I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221;
&#8226; &#8220;[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.&#8221;
&#8211;John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

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

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

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!


Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
&#8220; He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all&#8230; Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.&#8221; [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

&#8220; Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity&#8230; and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.&#8221; [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:
&#8226; &#8220;Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" &#8220;Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts. 

&#8220;The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.&#8221;
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
&#8220; Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.&#8221;

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Quotes of the Founders : Founding Fathers quotes on religion, faith, Christianity


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

hortysir said:


> WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> 
> Has someone said that we were?
> 
> Our founders had such a jaded view of Christianity, after being subjects of the Church of England, there is no reason why they would model this country after that standard.


 
True. However they acknowledged a supreme entity they referred to as the '_Creator_'...

[Snip]






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

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

[/Snip]


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

Even About.com knows they were Christian.

"No one can deny that many of the founding fathers of the United States of America were men of deep religious convictions based in the Bible and their Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees."

""While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." 
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343. 

John Adams 
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." 
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9. 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." 
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. 

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever." 
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776. 
Thomas Jefferson 
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." 
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. 

"I am a real Christian &#8211; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." 
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385. 
Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Suffice it to say, America was not founded on the principles of Atheism.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us." 
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229. 

Benjamin Franklin 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution 

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. 

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. 

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; 

But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure." 
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790. 

Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

James Madison 
4th U.S. President 

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." 
--America's Providential History, p. 93. 

Patrick Henry 
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." 
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii. 

Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers (Page 3)


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

I agree that America was not founded on Christianity.  BUT, it was founded upon Christian/Judeo biblical principles. 

You have to really focus on what the Christian haters say and how they say it.  They are always thinking of ways to undermine the truth about the USA when it comes to Christianity.  Christianity is the enemy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Suffice it to say, America was not founded on the principles of Atheism.



As I already told dd, people are willfully ignorant. There is no question that the US was founded on Christian principles. The founding fathers were up front about it and there are REAMS of documents which baldly state it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> I agree that America was not founded on Christianity.  BUT, it was founded upon Christian/Judeo biblical principles.
> 
> You have to really focus on what the Christian haters say and how they say it.  They are always thinking of ways to undermine the truth about the USA when it comes to Christianity.  Christianity is the enemy.


The principles were used as a model.

Looking at the "thou shalt not" parts of the 10 Commandments, I see nothing in there which isn't an act of aggression against one's neighbor.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that America was not founded on Christianity.  BUT, it was founded upon Christian/Judeo biblical principles.
> ...



I'm not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

The ten commandments have very little to do with the principles of freedom.

But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 4, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.



What's ironic is that many American slaves turned to evangelical Christianity for sustenance in the 19th century.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...


The duty of lawful de jure government is to provide a framework to protect its citizens against aggression, both from within and without.

Problem being right now is that since the onset of the progressive era, gubmint itself has become the greatest aggressor.


----------



## davecrowson (Jul 4, 2010)

Only when we, as individuals, are ready to sit in judgment, impose sentences and restrict the rights of our sons and daughters, should we be willing to hand these issues off to society. This should never be done casually. Our government was established to protect our unalienable rights and to recognize all men are created equal. We cannot lose sight of this and let it be used by those who would distract us. We instead, need to focus on the common purpose for our government and know that freedom doesnt always reflect what we may value as society but it will protect your right to choose what you value as an individual.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.
> ...


 
So what's your point? Or are you trying to derail the thread in your normal fashion?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 4, 2010)

I have no idea what the hell he's talking about, meself.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> I have no idea what the hell he's talking about, meself.


 
I know his intent. I want him to be honest about it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it mention Jesus Christ, the basis of Christianity. The founding fathers recognized a generic "God" but went to great lengths to avoid endorsing any one religion


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I agree.  Government is also becoming the oppressor.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



The founding fathers also recognized a God who created us.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> The ten commandments have very little to do with the principles of freedom.
> 
> But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.



Where did the founders state 'freedom' is a Christian tenet?  And when did Christianity repeal the ten commandments?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

The Revolution was fought to free us from a Christian nation that did NOT separate Church and State.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Revolution was fought to free us from a Christian nation that did NOT separate Church and State.



Ah yes, and that is the real question.  Traditional Americans and "Progressives" disagree on what exactly is meant by "separation of church and state".  This is where the argument lies.  "Progressives" are continually seeking methods to make Christianity invisible.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Revolution was fought to free us from a Christian nation that did NOT separate Church and State.
> ...



How does one make a religion invisible? Is it a governments job to make religions visible?

Shouldn't they do that on their own?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that America was not founded on Christianity.  BUT, it was founded upon Christian/Judeo biblical principles.
> ...



Yeah, if you don't count the first 4 or 5.


----------



## davecrowson (Jul 4, 2010)

Honest about what, that I care more about the true intent of our founders than I do about the dogma used to polarize us as a nation? Is that what you mean?


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No, it is not government's job to make a religion visible.  Freedom of religion will accomplish that.  In the US Constitution, government is to have no role in religious expression.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



That freedom, in any world existing outside of the head of Hobbes, isn't handed down by gods, it exists in the context of the society at hand and the elites at the helm of that society. By modern standards, the Founders had a very narrow conception of freedom, in that it allowed slavery (which one might normally think to be the _antithesis_ of freedom) and institutionalized misogyny. They were (brilliant) products of their time and society, not messengers from the gods.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



The founders did not address slavery because that was not the agenda.  Forging a nation was the agenda.  They were founding a nation of free men and thereby sowing the seeds that eventually ended the national nightmare of slavery.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jul 4, 2010)

AllieBaba (and others) pwn's the LilOldLady (and others) aka "pinheads"....

good job....

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

Amazing how the pinheads can accept the "new re-written" history just like the lemmings they are....over 2 hundred years of history just ignored because they value pinhead partisanship over the truth.....sad but true.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Like any other politicians, they compromised in order to found a nation comprised of states with different values regarding slavery.
They could not have founded a single nation if they insisted slavery not be allowed
That had to be settled 85 years later


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



They absolutely addressed the issue of slavery, and decided that it was tolerable.  In fact it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that slavery was tolerable within the context of the original Constitution.


----------



## Patriot214 (Jul 4, 2010)

Engraved on the top of the Washington Monument is the phrase "Laus Deo."  It was purposely placed in this position to face the heavens.  The translation is "Praise be to God."


----------



## hortysir (Jul 4, 2010)

Patriot214 said:


> Engraved on the top of the Washington Monument is the phrase "Laus Deo."  It was purposely placed in this position to face the heavens.  The translation is "Praise be to God."



, but not "Christ"


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Patriot214 said:
> 
> 
> > Engraved on the top of the Washington Monument is the phrase "Laus Deo." It was purposely placed in this position to face the heavens. The translation is "Praise be to God."
> ...


 
But whom was Christ but the _Father_ incarnate on the Earth?


----------



## traveler52 (Jul 4, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Religion is mentioned only twice in our Constitution. 

*Article VI*.
*Clause III*.

..."*But no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or pubic Trust under the United States*."  

*First Amendment*.

"*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or the Free Expression thereof*....

There is no State Sponsored or State Supported or State Mandated Religion.  Nor can a person be denied a job with the Government based on His/Her Religion or the lack thereof.  No Elected Public Official at the Federal, State, or Local Level can be required to be of a certain Religion.  No person can demand that another person in Government be of a certain religion, nor can a person of a certain religion be denied the right to run for public office based upon their religion or the lack there.

America is not, and has never been "*A Christian Nation*." such claims are false and misleading.  The individual right to worship is a Constitutionally Protected Right.  But at no time does our Constitution give any one religion preminent status over another.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
> --History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> ...



Are you citing that quote of Franklin as evidence we're a Christian nation?

The parts, specifically where he says he has 'doubts as to his divinity', but that there's 'no harm' in that being believed...

...tell me, maybe I'll learn something...how many Christian denominations doubt the divinity of Christ, but merely think he was a smart guy with some good ideas?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Our founding fathers were men of faith. Nuff said


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot214 said:
> ...



According to Christians


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Our founding fathers were men of faith. Nuff said



They were less Christian than most of our political leaders today


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Our founding fathers were men of faith. Nuff said
> ...



please---what a ridiculous claim.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 4, 2010)

More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. *All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians.* This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


 
No, according to _Christ._


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. *All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians.* This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!



oh hell--don't get all snooty about it----how about most of em ?


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

I don't understand why religious beliefs of the founders is such a big deal. non-christians who try to prove they weren't christians are just insecure in their own beliefs or have some grudge aagainst christians while christians who try to prove they were are similarly insecure in their own beliefs (why do they need other's beliefs to validate theirs?) and have an ego/self confidence issue as they try to put down non-believers


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



<- not a fan of absolutes, especially when they are easily disprovable


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



No, according to _Jesus._


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> I don't understand why religious beliefs of the founders is such a big deal. non-christians who try to prove they weren't christians are just insecure in their own beliefs or have some grudge aagainst christians while christians who try to prove they were are similarly insecure in their own beliefs (why do they need other's beliefs to validate theirs?) and have an ego/self confidence issue as they try to put down non-believers



facts----look at the facts.

Were our founding fathers religious people or not ? Simple enough


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Oh you pedants !


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



All of em. Fact. You loony Socialists/Progressives just need to get over it. Move on for God's sake.


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why religious beliefs of the founders is such a big deal. non-christians who try to prove they weren't christians are just insecure in their own beliefs or have some grudge aagainst christians while christians who try to prove they were are similarly insecure in their own beliefs (why do they need other's beliefs to validate theirs?) and have an ego/self confidence issue as they try to put down non-believers
> ...



yes but they certainly weren't cookie cutter christians. they were extremely questioning and of course the famous example of one who rewrote the entire new testament to fit his belief system. I seriously doubt any of them would fit in with any mass sect of today


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

the topic is very interesting though. I worked with a project manger who went to theologian school and studied the founding fathers beliefs as parts of his masters/thesis/grad work (not sure exactly what the school called it), and he had some really interesting insights into it.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

They certainly weren't atheists and I would prefer the truth be known about the history of our country.


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



you are still wrong no matter how many stupid labels you throw at me


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Far from it....

Most of our current politicians (including our president) are Christians. Our founding fathers consisted of a large percentage of deists who had a broad perception of a higher being.

Our founding fathers would have been appalled at the large Christian influence in the Bush administration


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Would you buy that the founding fathers believed in a God  or is that still pushing the limits ?


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Would you buy that the founding father believed in a God  or is that still pushing the limits ?



I think everyone one did. an atheist would have quite stood out at that time


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 4, 2010)

Our Nation was founded by puritan Christians whose ancestors fled the King's tyranny in England. My God,pick up a book once in awhile you Socialist/Progressive wankers. Yikes! lol!


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



This post makes much more sense than your last. 

The founders had extremely strong religious beliefs much more so than the fake politicians today who use religion to secure votes. 

On the other hand, they weren't stock Christians, they had wildly different views on god and many of them hated organized religion, so if your point is that organized christian religion today is more influential on politicians then you are right.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Would you buy that the founding father believed in a God  or is that still pushing the limits ?
> ...



Well that's the facts-----whatever direction any further debate takes, it's gotta include that truth. Rewriting history to prove a point is pretty lame.


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Our Nation was founded by puritan Christians whose ancestors fled the King's tyranny in England. My God,pick up a book once in awhile you Socialist/Progressive wankers. Yikes! lol!



now you are saying they were all puritans?




dude just stop you are becoming a joke. I think it is you who should research the religious beliefs of individual founders


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



poppycock-----what were the chances of a buddhist becoming president back then ?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Would you buy that the founding fathers believed in a God  or is that still pushing the limits ?



Most of them...those who didn't...faked it


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 4, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Would you buy that the founding fathers believed in a God  or is that still pushing the limits ?
> ...



Just like today's politicians.  Not a lot of people intelligent enough to make it in politics still believe in 1st grade fairy tales.  The only openly agnostic founding father I know of was Franklin.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Claiming to know there isn't a god is just as "1st grade" as claiming there is one. Keep trying, theophobe.


----------



## blu (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



claiming to know or not know if there is a god is way different than believing in fairy tales such as the bible taken literally


----------



## Care4all (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



but the constitution/1st amendment says nothing of the gvt not having religious ''expression''?  GVT officials expressed their religious beliefs all over the place!

the first amendment prohibited the government from legislating an Established Religion of the State, an Established Church of the gvt ie the Anglican Church, and gave the gvt no powers to stop any citizen from practicing or expressing or establishing, their religion or church in the public square.



> Congress shall make no law 'respecting', (in old english this word is defined as 'concerning') an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;



care


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



we aren't talking about literalists but nice try.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The difference is, the good Christians *KNOW* what happened, *KNOW* what happens when you die, *KNOW* who the good guys and the bad guys are.

The atheists/agnostics generally have the same questions about our existence, but have the cajones to say "I _DON'T_ KNOW."  

And that's where I am - I don't know.  And neither do you.  And neither does the Pope or Pat Robertson.  We don't know the answers to these questions.  Any answers proposed conveniently require no verifiable evidence.  Most religions were invented as a means to instill fear in, therefore control, primitive humans.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You mistakenly assume that you know what a good Christian is. A common first grade mistake made by people trying to make a point about the Christian religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot214 said:
> ...



Christ means anointed one. If Jesus is the God the Father then I am a bit confused about who anointed him.


----------



## LuckyDan (Jul 4, 2010)

From George Washiongton's Farewell Address (1796)

_*Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports*. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: *Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ?* And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure*, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.*_

The Birth of Freedom - George Washington?s Farewell Address


----------



## Care4all (Jul 4, 2010)

deists believed there was a God, a creator based on rationalism or reason, and based on nature....they did not believe in miracles or God's intervention on earth, nor did they believe in prophesy, or the deity of Christ....they believed in 'freewill' of man, and what happens on earth is from man's freewill interacted with nature.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

blu said:


> I don't understand why religious beliefs of the founders is such a big deal. non-christians who try to prove they weren't christians are just insecure in their own beliefs or have some grudge aagainst christians while christians who try to prove they were are similarly insecure in their own beliefs (why do they need other's beliefs to validate theirs?) and have an ego/self confidence issue as they try to put down non-believers



I really love the people who insist that Jefferson was not a Christian even though he said he was. Apparently the only definition of Christian that matters is the one they use, not the one he used.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I am a Christian and I don't know any of those things.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


 
Jesus was God incarnate upon the Earth that came to proclaim the new covenant between God and man.
Though he is professed to be the Son of God...then would he not be an extension of God in the Flesh?

That is what I mean.

From Matthew 16:


*13*When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 
*14*And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 
*15*He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 
*16*And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 
*17*And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
*18*And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
*19*And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  *20*Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 

_______________

Just my take.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...




This is actually a subject of a separate thread, but suffice it to say that the belief that Jesus is God was not one that was not part of mainstream doctrine until after Constantine and the Council of Nicea.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 4, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



LilOlLady....aka LOL.....because you are a joke....

You claim the Founding Fathers were NOT Christians...?? 

Only perverse socialist/progressive/communist Anti-Americans slimeballs like you are attempting to pervert the history of America by making such outrageous claims.....

How about we take a looky here at the FACTS.....RATIONAL people would agree that an OVERWHELMING number of Founding Fathers (FF) were indeed Christian (specifically, Protestants)....read it and weep...



> *Religious Affiliation of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America*
> 
> The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
> 
> ...


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
I understand. But bear in mind I am independent and not attached to any one doctrine. It's all my understanding...my take. 

Thanks.

~T


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



How can you "address" something when it is not mentioned?  The US Constitution ignores slavery until it was outlawed.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

For crying out loud, you libs need to get over the fact our nation was founded on Christian/Judeo principles.  I know you don't like that fact and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to convince people that somehow being a "deist" is not being a "Christian" or whatever.  

Why is it so important to you to convince others that our founders were not men of God?  Why the nitpicking bullshit?


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> For crying out loud, you libs need to get over the fact our nation was founded on Christian/Judeo principles. I know you don't like that fact and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to convince people that somehow being a "deist" is not being a "Christian" or whatever.
> 
> Why is it so important to you to convince others that our founders were not men of God? Why the nitpicking bullshit?


 

For answers? See the *ACLU.* (To so proudly they hail). Something larger than themselves other than Big Government they are threatened by.

Which in of itself it completely convoluted in it's own right. Heck, Government _IS_ their _religion._


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Did slaves enjoy the protections offered in the Bill of Rights?

What was the 3/5ths Compromise about?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!



Isn't the belief that Jesus was/is the son of God fundamental to being a practicing Christian?

Or are you saying that if you call yourself a Christian and/or attend a Christian church occasionally, that makes you a Christian.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!
> ...


 
Being Christian is practicing what Christ taught and  Or is that thought repugnant to you? And the Founders recognized something larger than themselves...whether they attended church or not matters NOT and I tag you for the attempted deflection.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> For crying out loud, you libs need to get over the fact our nation was founded on Christian/Judeo principles.  I know you don't like that fact and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to convince people that somehow being a "deist" is not being a "Christian" or whatever.
> 
> Why is it so important to you to convince others that our founders were not men of God?  Why the nitpicking bullshit?



They won't tell you this.....but it is...

Because liberals/socialists/progressives/communists/anti-Americans wish to severe the tie that we Americans have with God.....

Because they wish to destroy our belief that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given....

Because they wish to squeeze Government in between us and our natural Creator...

Because they wish to replace our belief in God with the belief that Government is the ultimate arbiter and giver (and taker) of your rights....

Because liberals/socialists/progressives/communists/anti-Americans are (by-and-large) non-believers in God.....

Because God frustrates them and gets in their way.....

Because ultimately man-made Government =  their "God"....


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > For crying out loud, you libs need to get over the fact our nation was founded on Christian/Judeo principles. I know you don't like that fact and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to convince people that somehow being a "deist" is not being a "Christian" or whatever.
> ...


 

And having a belief in a diety larger than ones self brings Morality and anchored principle to the table.

And the Statists cannot let either hamper their ill designs of control over others.

Bottom line.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



I can live with that. If you ever do want to discuss it let me know, otherwise we can just accept we disagree.

~QW


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

*The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.*

(Thomas Paine, one of your so-called Christian founders)


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
One day we will. I don't think we're that far apart. 

Regards,

~T


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > More old & stale Socialist/Progressive B.S. All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This is fact. Loony Socialists/Progressives may not like this but it is still fact. Get over it. Geesh!
> ...



It is only fundamental to those who don't understand his teachings.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> *The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.*
> 
> (Thomas Paine, one of your so-called Christian founders)


 

And Mr. Paine was in his right to state his belief. And so what? And why do you think the First Amendment reflects what it does?

And he was speaking of _organized religion._

Got an answer for that one? Do ya?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> *The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.*
> 
> (Thomas Paine, one of your so-called Christian founders)



We call those "exceptions to the rule".


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I see what you're saying.  I was referring to the issue of "slavery", not taxes.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



So the, what would you call it, foundational? primary? fundamental? belief that Christianity is based on, i.e., the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus was the son of God,  which virtually all organized Christian churches hold as their most important truth,

is an error?

lol


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > For crying out loud, you libs need to get over the fact our nation was founded on Christian/Judeo principles.  I know you don't like that fact and you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to convince people that somehow being a "deist" is not being a "Christian" or whatever.
> ...



I agree.  Well spoken.  Thank you


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2010)

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Thomas Jefferson*, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a *deist, *created the *Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the other supernatural aspects of the Bible.*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



The Constitution was composed under the inarguable condition that slavery was going to continue to exist, legally.  If that is what you mean by not addressing it then no in that sense they didn't address it.  

My point was that not addressing it was in it's own way a manner addressing it.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



and just why did they kick the can of dealing with slavery down the road ?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > *The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.*
> ...



I was responding to libopocalype's 'rule':

*All of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This is fact. *

So, no, that would not be a fact.  That would more resemble ignorant bullshit, than fact.


----------



## The T (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 
It was a compromise because Slave states in the South wanted slaves counted thus giving them more Electoral clout. Northern States did NOT want them counted since they could not by law VOTE.

However be it noted that the Southern States pitched a Fit when Lincoln freed them making them Citizens...and therefore could _vote._

And those that pitched a fit were Democrats.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



naturally. The only way the fact that religious men were the founders of America is to nit pick on the exceptinos to the rule. Go ahead--believe what you will but facts are facts.

oh ya--none claimed that they had attained perfection either.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



More correctly, they were Christian Democrats


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



It was about setting aside irresolvable differences in order to protect a young weak nation from being wiped out of existence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 4, 2010)

The Christian Nation Myth

The Christian Nation Myth
Farrell Till 
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers." 

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible. 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

> Deism
> 
> 
> The effort to find this natural religion came to be known as Deism. The focus naturally was on ethics. Deism first appeared in England in the seventeenth century in response to the theological controversies that divided Christians during the sixteenth century. Deism must be distinguished from theism and atheism. Atheists were scornful of deists saying that were not weak enough to be Christians, and not strong enough to be atheists. *The Deists believed themselves to be Christians.* Their God was not the personal God of the theists: a God who operated through history and concerned himself continually with the affairs of human beings. Rather their God was the Great Artificer of the Universe who with a thrust of his Almighty hand, had set rolling the myriad spheres, and left creation to its own devices. Rather than being intimately involved with the creation, this God had left humanity on its own to be guided in its affairs by reason, the "candle of the Lord."
> ...




Lecture 4


----------



## bodecea (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> I agree that America was not founded on Christianity.  BUT, it was founded upon Christian/Judeo biblical principles.
> 
> You have to really focus on what the Christian haters say and how they say it.  They are always thinking of ways to undermine the truth about the USA when it comes to Christianity.  Christianity is the enemy.



So, our laws are based on the J/C biblical principles, eh?   Which of the 10 commandments are law?  How about Leviticus...how much of it is law?  How much of the NT is law?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

Alas----I supposed we will have to concede that America was founded on men who believed in God and they weren't necessarily orthodox Christian.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 4, 2010)

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Your point being?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 4, 2010)

hortysir said:


> WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> 
> Has someone said that we were?
> 
> Our founders had such a jaded view of Christianity, after being subjects of the Church of England, there is no reason why they would model this country after that standard.




Wrong they did not have a jaded view of Christianity, they had a jaded view of the church of England and Catholic Church. People came here to be able to practice their religion of choice, and the Vast majority of them were Christians of one type or another.

It is pure ignorance to try and pretend the people who founded America were not Christians.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



My point is that "the means" to ending slavery were in the Constitution.  There is no way slavery was going to exist in a free society for very long.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



The simple fact is had they tried to address Slavery at that time. America would never have been a Nation. Period, Many of the founders, even ones who owned slaves. Expressed their desire to see the institution die, but they were realist, and lived in the real world, and knew they could not create a nation if they alienated half the states from the get go.

In their wisdom however as Jack said they did create a way for future generations to put an end to it.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 4, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Bullseye.  Thanks.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 4, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> ...



And some of "those Christians" hung other Christians they didn't like.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 4, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



I guess it's all dependent on whether you focus on the constitution itself or the authors of it.  They were Christian in their faith...but they were willing to establish a freedom of religion so as to encourage others to seek out the same willful acceptance of Christ as they did.  Instead of being FORCED into religion as they were in England at the time, they came here to escape the religious tyranny they were under.  

The Constitution was our founding father's vote of confidence to honor and trust people in all their imperfections to use this tool called free choice under the venue of our Constitution as its guiding force to determine the destiny of our nation. It was their trust that this one act of free will would pave a victory for good over evil and prosperity over despair that the constraints of tyranny would deny us.


----------



## Toome (Jul 4, 2010)

Back in 1776, when our forefathers dropped to their knees to pray in thanksgiving or to pray for their fellow man, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were not praying to Allah, Buddha, Zeus or the Reverend Moon.

Threads like this come across as pretty dumb.  Of course the Founding Fathers did not want a state-sponsored religion.  But it's pretty dumb to assume that Christianity did not play a role in the founding of our nation.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

Toome said:


> Back in 1776, when our forefathers dropped to their knees to pray in thanksgiving or to pray for their fellow man, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were not praying to Allah, Buddha, Zeus or the Reverend Moon.
> 
> Threads like this come across as pretty dumb.  Of course the Founding Fathers did not want a state-sponsored religion.  But it's pretty dumb to assume that Christianity did not play a role in the founding of our nation.



I agree with Toome

We were founded by Christians......but not founded on Christianity


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 4, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Slavery managed to exist for almost 80 years after the Constitution was enacted. 
For the most part, slavery was not needed at the time of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin shortly after the revolution. The cotton gin made cotton the gold of our economy and made slave labor essential to that economy.

It would not have just... gone away...without the Civil War


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 4, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> James Madison;
> "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"
> -letter to Thomas Jefferson
> 
> ...


I love it when people use unsubstantial quotes. Espically when they us Thomas Jefferson
Written in the front of Thomas Jefferson's personal Bible, he wrote:

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator."
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/jefferson.html
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom 

*Thomas Jefferson, 1786* 


Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. 
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. 

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 4, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The Constitution only ended slavery if you believe and acknowledge that it was constitutional for Lincoln and the Union to forcibly 'veto' secession.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



*smells desperation*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



No one said the Constitution ended slavery, they said the way was provided to bring it to an end through the Constitution.

Take a look at Article V.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 4, 2010)

Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it if you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it. ~John Adams letter to his wife Abigail Adams, 26 April 1777.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 4, 2010)

At least we got the illuminati out of our govt a few years on down the road.


----------



## rdean (Jul 4, 2010)

A lot has changed since the US was founded.  Things the founding fathers would never have approved of.  Women voting.  Slavery ending.

Even Jesus obviously approved of slavery.

Ephesians 6:5 NLT
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. 

1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.


----------



## LuckyDan (Jul 4, 2010)

What countries _did_ outlaw slavery by the 18th century? Were there any such countries at the time of our founding?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 4, 2010)

rdean said:


> A lot has changed since the US was founded.  Things the founding fathers would never have approved of.  Women voting.  Slavery ending.
> 
> Even Jesus obviously approved of slavery.
> 
> ...



That's not Jesus...that's Paul.


----------



## LuckyDan (Jul 4, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > A lot has changed since the US was founded. Things the founding fathers would never have approved of. Women voting. Slavery ending.
> ...


 
And it was the way of the world 2000 years ago.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 4, 2010)

rdean said:


> A lot has changed since the US was founded.  Things the founding fathers would never have approved of.  Women voting.  Slavery ending.
> 
> Even Jesus obviously approved of slavery.
> 
> ...



Matthew Mark Luke and John you will only find the life of Jesus written in them you will not find it written in Ephesians or Timothy


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 4, 2010)

cherrypicking to build the proper(your) image of Jesus?


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 4, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> cherrypicking to build the proper(your) image of Jesus?



You'd be amazed at how many actually do....







Or....maybe you wouldn't be amazed...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

rdean said:


> A lot has changed since the US was founded.  Things the founding fathers would never have approved of.  Women voting.  Slavery ending.
> 
> Even Jesus obviously approved of slavery.
> 
> ...




Oooh, that almost hurt.

That was Paul, not Jesus.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > A lot has changed since the US was founded.  Things the founding fathers would never have approved of.  Women voting.  Slavery ending.
> ...



You beat me to it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 4, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> What countries _did_ outlaw slavery by the 18th century? Were there any such countries at the time of our founding?



Quite a few.

Abolition of slavery timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 4, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > cherrypicking to build the proper(your) image of Jesus?
> ...



At least the skintone is closer to what a semitic arab would have looked like.
Unlike the ones presented to christians in America.

Just think you love and worship an arab as god.


----------



## LuckyDan (Jul 4, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > What countries _did_ outlaw slavery by the 18th century? Were there any such countries at the time of our founding?
> ...


 
By that Wiki list, it appears the following countries had outlawed slavery by 1776:

Iceland
Norway
France (sorta - can't really tell what exactly Louis 5 did)
Sweden
Ragusa (Croatia)
Polish Lithuania
Chile (via Spain)
Russia
Portugal
England
Scotland


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 5, 2010)

Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?

We did not come to America to escape religion, we came here to be able to worship in the way we wanted, if at all. We Came here because of the promise that we were all equal under god. 

The only Direct mention of Religion in the constitution says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " 

Now Common sense interpretation of that sentence tells me it is saying that congress can not establish a state religion or pass any law restricting your right to worship as you please. The fact that you Left wing God Hating wackos try and say it means you can't have Christan references on our money, or on the wall in a Federal Building or our in the yard. Are warping the intent of the constitution For what? Are you really being oppressed by seeing it? Are you really being religiously oppressed when you hear that the US was founded on Christian Values, or that it is one Nation, UNDER GOD? I just do not get it. I don't even believe in god, and I can not see peoples problem with all this. It makes me laugh, Because we all know. Years from now on their Death Bed. They will all say a little prayer. Just in case. Fuck I know I will. 

lol

Get the hell over it.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 5, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



Russia abolished slavery by 1723, but that's mostly semantics as the slaves were simply converted into serfs.  There's little practical difference...slaves are private property, to be bought and sold at the discretion of the owner, while serfs are bound to the land and have greater restrictions on the sale of serfs.  But for all practical purposes, serfs are no more free than slaves.  Serfdom was not ended in Russia until the 1860's.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

> Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?



All men were not created equal in the Bible....slavery was openly accepted. As a matter of fact, when God passed down the Ten Comandments, he intentionally left slavery off the list

We do not need Christian (Jewish actually) values to know that killing, stealing and raping children is wrong. All societies have these values

If we are founded on Christian values, why are laws against  having other gods, idol worshipping, keeping holy the sabbath, using the lords name in vain and coveting all considered to be unconstitutional?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're wrong because muslims have no problem with the rape of a child.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 5, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Apparently you're unfamiliar with the throngs of rightwingers, including many here, who think secession was (and is) constitutionally legal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 5, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Its not? show mne where it states that secession is illegal. I will give you this much, in the North Carolina State Constitution secession is forbidden.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 5, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Since the OP was about religion and the founding of America, the constituionality of slavery is of no consequence to me at this time. It was pretty well well established that while the may not have been Christian in the strictest of definitions they certainly were men who believed in God.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The Constitution provides the American people the opportunity to do anything they want, including bringing back slavery, if enough of the American people vote for it.  So what was your point, again?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 5, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Then save your childish smartassery.  

The founders may have believed in God, but they weren't gods.  This is where rightwingers generally go wrong.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 5, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



not exactly-----if our congressmen won't give us an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment, we can't do shit.


----------



## The T (Jul 5, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
Exactly. They can make any law they want. If it doesn't pass Constitutional muster? The law is moot...and should be challanged early and often through the Courts just as Obamacare is at present.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Our founding fathers were men of faith. Nuff said
> ...



But behaved more like a Christian should than our current politicians


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> ...


Apologies for omitting the word "organized" when referring to Christianity.

Agreed!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.
> ...



Were turned to it...their masters liked the phrase "servants obey your masters".


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

Jack Fate said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Boo Hoo...why don't you either revolt or leave then.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

The T said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Fate said:
> ...



Asking again, what is the point of your last comment?

BTW...love your avatar...suits you.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 5, 2010)

More stupidity & ignorance from the usual "God Damn America!!" suspects. Every political message board i've ever been on always has a couple of Socialist/Progressive nutters claiming our Founding Fathers weren't Christians. It's par for the course with these nutters. Al Jazeera,Huffington & Moveon.org told em so i guess. Kooky stuff.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> More stupidity & ignorance from the usual "God Damn America!!" suspects. Every political message board i've ever been on always has a couple of Socialist/Progressive nutters claiming our Founding Fathers weren't Christians. It's par for the course with these nutters. Al Jazeera,Huffington & Moveon.org told em so i guess. Kooky stuff.



Clueless as usual Libo

Nobody said they weren't Christians. The thread is about the US not being based on Christianity. Now you can participate in the thread with the rest of the grownups


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 5, 2010)

Yes all of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians but Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of our nation. Seriously,you Socialist/Progressive nutters really do need to lay off the Al Jazeera,HuffPo,and Moveon.org stuff. Yikes!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Yes all of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians but Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of our nation. Seriously,you Socialist/Progressive nutters really do need to lay off the Al Jazeera,HuffPo,and Moveon.org stuff. Yikes!



They were all white males.......so obviously this is a white male country


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Yes all of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians but Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of our nation. Seriously,you Socialist/Progressive nutters really do need to lay off the Al Jazeera,HuffPo,and Moveon.org stuff. Yikes!
> ...



Yes,GOD DAMN AMERICA!! Seriously,you Socialists/Progressives really are pretty ignorant. Try reading a book once and awhile. Al Jazeera,HuffPo,and Moveon.org have rotted your brains.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > More stupidity & ignorance from the usual "God Damn America!!" suspects. Every political message board i've ever been on always has a couple of Socialist/Progressive nutters claiming our Founding Fathers weren't Christians. It's par for the course with these nutters. Al Jazeera,Huffington & Moveon.org told em so i guess. Kooky stuff.
> ...



The only clueless one is you wrongwinger....

This blatant untruth was actually claimed in Post#1....



			
				LilOlLady said:
			
		

> Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity.



The truth.....our country was founded for the most part by Christians of different denominations who all wanted the freedom to practice their individual brand of religion.....they came to America in order to escape religious persecutions back in the old home countries....they came together to establish America and its Constitution with the express caveat that each individual could freely express and practice his own religion....

The founding fathers were inclusive.....not exclusive like today's socialists/progressives/commies or theocratic muslims....

Perhaps you could explain to us why the Socialist/Progressive nutters on one hand blast innocent Christianity.....while on the other hand they are amenable to muslims who wish to establish religious sharia LAW right here in our free country....?

Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:  "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

PS.....you could also replace the word Islam with Communism....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> 
> 
> All men were not created equal in the Bible....slavery was openly accepted. As a matter of fact, when God passed down the Ten Comandments, he intentionally left slavery off the list
> ...



Slavery was actively discouraged in the Bible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If enough states call for a Constitutional convention they have to call one. Probably.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



which again leaves us in the hands of some mighty timid state congressmen.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

hortysir said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Do any of our current politicians own slaves?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Slavery was actively discouraged in the Bible.



That is a very matter-of-fact-sounding statement, QW.
Can you provide scriptural evidence?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> ...



Far from it.....In fact, Moses crossed the dessert to free the Israelites from slavery. Then when he went to get the 10 commandments...God didn't even list "Thou shall not own slaves"

Tells alot about priorities


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2010)

Many of the characters in the bible had slaves. Nohwere was it condemned.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because we have religious freedom dude. Figure it out.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> ...



Let me do some figger'n....

Oh I see now.....So we WEREN'T founded as a Christian nation

Thanks for clarifying


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 5, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> The ten commandments have very little to do with the principles of freedom.
> 
> But the founding fathers all agreed freedom is a Christian tenet, and that freedom emanates from God.



No, freedom emanates from The United States Constitution.
In America that is.
The Founders RAN FROM the idea that man receives anything from God.  They ran from the European countries that proclaimed a divine right from God to rule as monarchs.
The Founders sure were smart. In their day many nations ruled as nations of men and their God. 
The United States of America is not a nation of men and their Gods. We are a nation of LAWS.
And God ain't mentioned in any law. 
America, LOVE it or LEAVE IT.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I never claimed we were founded as a Christian Nation. Of course we were not. We were founded as a nation with the freedom to worship as you please.

This argument was never about whether or not we were a christian Nation. It is about whether or not Our Founders used Christian ideals when they formed this Nation. Or at least I thought that was what we were debating. I Think is is relatively clear that our founders were influenced by the Christian Beliefs when they wrote the founding documents. After all it is they who said our Rights come from God, and that we are a Nation under god. That does not mean we are a christian Nation, with a Christian State Religion. It simply means that the People who founded this nation were indeed Christians who believed our rights were ultimately given to us by a creator. 

Even today almost 80% of Americans self identify as Christian. I am not sure why the Left is so keen on proving whether or not we are a Christian Nation. It is semantics really. We are a one of the only nations on earth with guaranteed Freedom of Religion. The fact that you are able to argue that we are not Christian or that we are is proof of that. We may not be a Christian Nation in a legal sense. But with 80% saying they are a Christians we clearly are one in spirit.

Just because we are founded on christian Values, does not mean we would have to make laws banning worship of other gods. You are confusing basing something on a value system with actually forcing everyone to worship one religion. 

Hardly the same thing.


----------



## Smartt33 (Jul 5, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



America was not founded upon Christianity, it was founded upon Christian principles. On that there is proof in the Declaration of Independence.

Today, America has crumbled because the Christian principles that made this nation great have been exchanged for immorality and stupidity.

In the current administration, with an unamerican as president, and idealists as his puppets, and Muslim religion as it's new master, America is a lost nation. 

May God help America, and those who are following the Almighty in their lives. 

The proof of the above will play itself out as each day passes. I know you can all see it, but fools are willingly blind.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Which ideals did they use that are not Jewish ideals?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 5, 2010)

Smartt33 said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



What are the _uniquely Christian _principles found in the Declaration of Independence?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Slavery was actively discouraged in the Bible.
> ...



The word translated as slave in the Old Testament is more accurately translated as servant or hired worker. Israelites were forbidden to own have fellow Israelites as servants for more than 6 years, they had to be released from their contracts on the seventh year. (Exod 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-15, and Jer 34:14) Exceptions were made for foreign born and thier children (Lev 25:44-47) but they seemed to be more like serfs than slaves, and Israel was enjoined to treat them as quests and respect them. If they ever mistreated them, and the servant was injured as a result, they were freed from the contract. (Exod 21:26-27) They were also specifically prohibited from returning escaped slaves. (Deut 23:15-16)


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Now, THAT is the kind of reply I'm used to from you!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Far from it.....In fact, Moses crossed the dessert to free the Israelites from slavery. Then when he went to get the 10 commandments...God didn't even list "Thou shall not own slaves"
> 
> Tells alot about priorities



How does it do that?

I get it, because God doesn't meet your moral code and specifically mention something that is only a small portion of the law He handed down it must mean He fully supports it.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The ten commandments have very little to do with the principles of freedom.
> ...


Noooo.......
Our RIGHTS, that are listed in the Constitution, are God-given and entrusted to our government for protection by our elected officials.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Thank you. Sometimes it feels like I am wasting my time going into detail, I will remember that some people expect it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Revisionist history

What was their pay?
Were their children "servants" too
Were they beaten?
Were they free to come and go when they were not working?

otherwise.....slaves

Why did Moses free them if they were just "servants"?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 5, 2010)

You're right. The U.S. was actually founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Judeo-Christianity is the correct description. I assure you our Founding fathers were not Socialist/Progressive Atheists. That's just a Socialist/Progressive nutter fantasy. I suggest less Al Jazeera,HuffPo,and Moveon.org and more reading about history for those nutters.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Far from it.....In fact, Moses crossed the dessert to free the Israelites from slavery. Then when he went to get the 10 commandments...God didn't even list "Thou shall not own slaves"
> ...



I like God....seems like a great guy (except for that flood genocide)

But when he handed down the 10 Comandments he was not having his best day. I'm just a regular sewer worker and I could have come up with a better list.

Like I said....he missed the boat on slavery, no mention of assault, honor thy father and mother but no requirement to honor your children (they are more vulnerable), nothing about protecting the environment, arson, war

God was OK with his "I am the lord, thy God" but he could have left it at that. Wasting vital commandments on graven images, the sabbath, thy name in vane is a little overboard

And whats with the coveting?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I think the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle.

The Founders fully believed that our rights emanated from Providence, from our Creator. They were also fully aware of what it meant to have that concept codified into law as they were familiar with both the Church of England and the Holy Roman Empire. They wanted to build a wall between the church and the state to prevent the free expression of religion in all its forms, which always happens when a government endorses one religion over another. They knew that must be prevented if at all possible, and they were right about that.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



So...if we don't believe in God we don't get them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Revisionist history



You are the one claiming the Bible says something I have proved it does not. Who exactly is engaging in the revision?



rightwinger said:


> What was their pay?



I don't know.



rightwinger said:


> Were their children "servants" too



Already covered



rightwinger said:


> Were they beaten?



That was illegal under the law in Deuteronomy.



rightwinger said:


> Were they free to come and go when they were not working?



Apparently, since they could not be forced back if they left. I will have to admit that is just a guess though.



rightwinger said:


> Why did Moses free them if they were just "servants"?



Historians believe that Egypt viewed the Hebrews as mercenaries, not slaves. Perhaps the reason that Egypt did not want to let them go is that they were much to effective as a fighting force to allow to form their own country. As I wasn't there I cannot answer that question definitively. Are you going to try to claim you were there?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am not God's complaint department, nor am I here to defend Him from anything, or prove He exists. If you want any of that you will have to find someone who claims to be authorized. I would recommend Nuebarth for that, but he is such an idiot I would have to jump in and correct him if you did. 

Seriously, I don't have all the answers, and do not claim to. There was a time when I though I had those answers, but that was a long time ago.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

bodecea said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Not the way it works. You get them regardless.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2010)

bodecea said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Birth 
We all have the same rights, regardless of where/whom they were derived
(I haven't seen any in the Cabella's catalog, so I'm pretty sure that ain't where they come from  )


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 5, 2010)

I think we can all agree that practicing Christians did create the greatest country in the world no? To bash Christians is to bash your own great nation. If those Christians were so awful,how could they create such a wonderful nation? The fact is all of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This just can't be disputed. To try and claim that their Christian beliefs and values had absolutely nothing to do with their founding of our great nation,is just dishonest and delusional. They believed in separation of Church & State but they were far from being Atheists. This whole debate is pointless. All of our Founding Fathers were Christians and did create this wonderful nation. Personally i think God did have something to do with it. We were and still are a very unique nation. Divine guidance? Well i'll let you decide that for yourself.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Then, they aren't god given...they just....are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I'm impressed.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



They were paid, a set amount by law, and they were freed by law every so many years (7?).

The children of Hebrew slaves were not necessarily slaves themselves. 

Yes they were beaten. Serfs were also beaten and were not called slaves. Employees in sweatshops were beaten. People are beaten today. That is not how slave status is determined.

Moses freed them because they had been promised their own land and country, by God. Moses was not thrilled with his mission, by the way. He stuttered and didn't want to be responsible for what he knew would be a massive exodus. He knew people would die, and they did. Including his own wife and their children (when their own people trampled them in the chaos that occurred around the golden calf episode). But God spoke to Moses and told him it was time. Moses argued and God showed him the error of his ways (then killed his wife and children). Many people, including Aaron, considered it nothing less than suicide, and felt comfortable with their circumstances.

If the Pharoah had dared, he would have used the military to subdue the slaves. But he didn't dare because slaves had rights, and there were a LOT of them. They were well educated, they were well connected and intertwined with mainstream Egyptian (and world) society. They were Egyptian themselves, except that they were Hebrew as well. Moses himself was raised in Pharoah's household, and enjoyed all the benefits of being a member of the Egyptian royal and (to Egyptians, at any rate) holy family. 

I hate it when ignorami try to simplify and dumb down history.


----------



## rikules (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all. We have complete religious freedom in this country. What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not. They are still good Ideas are they not?
> ...




"Slavery was actively discouraged in the Bible. "

I find it rather frightening that a person could base his political convictions SO STRONGLY on something he knows so little about!

site follows;

*Biblical Verses Condoning and Regulating Slavery*

The fact that slavery exists in the Bible is no secret. There are laws regulating its practice; how to buy and sell slaves, what to do if they commit a crime, the degree to which they can be beat, and laws concerning sexual activity with female slaves. Some of these verses are included here. The point here is not to comment on the existence of slavery or the Bible's laws regarding it. My intention is more to increase awareness of its presence in Biblical text. A slave in the Bible (or in Greek, Roman, Islamic, or Egyptian history for that matter) is not the same as a slave in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. This new form of plantation slavery was unique in history in that it was based solely on race. 

Regarding the emancipation of slaves, Jewish slaves were to be freed after six years, except those who were born by the female slave. Female slaves, sold into slavery by their fathers, would be slaves forever. And the cost of freeing a slave was calculated using the number of years to the next Jubilee Year, ranging between 1 and 50 years. 

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
Also, in Leviticus, a distinction is made between the hired servant and the slave. 

Leviticus 25:48-53 "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

=====================


"Why are Liberals so bound and determined to prove America was not founded on Religious Ideal at all."

because so many conservative christians are bound and determined to prove that America WAS founded on christian religious principles so that they can have America declared a CHRISTIAN NATION and then enact the bible and the 10 commandments as LAWS OF THE LAND.

these people need to be stopped.



" We have complete religious freedom in this country."

right.
and that includes freedom FROM religion,




" What is the big deal if some of our core beliefs, Like the idea that all men are created equal(under god or not) and that you should not kill, or steal or Rape your own kids, Where inspired by Judeo/Christian Core values or not."
They are still good Ideas are they not?"


yes
they are good ideas

but they were not ORIGINALLY inspired by the christan bible

these concepts were initially developed by hammurabi (and written in his code long before the bible was written)
and the greeks

christians stole them from hammurabi and the greeks

breaking one of their own 10 commandments

most of which are unconstitutional, anyway

America was NEVER a christian nation

America is NOT a christian nation

and I pray to the gods that I don't believe in that it NEVER becomes one


----------



## rikules (Jul 5, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



"I hate it when ignorami try to simplify and dumb down history."

then perhaps you should stop doing it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

"I hate it when ignorami try to simplify and dumb down history."

_When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)_

Sounds like slavery to me....I don't see her having much choice in the matter


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

_ Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.  _

You can beat them within an inch of their lives...as long as they can get up after a couple of days it is OK


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 5, 2010)

_Leviticus 25:44-45
 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.   _

Talks about the buying of human beings....I don't see anything about paying them for their service


----------



## rikules (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> _When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)_
> 
> Sounds like slavery to me....I don't see her having much choice in the matter




this is one those issues where the insanity of the conservative is revealed

on the one hand;
they'll spend HOURS insisting that it was CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS (working with god) who ENDED the  liberal/atheistic/secular EVIL PRACTICE of SLAVERY

yet
now
faced with the AWFUL TRUTH that god condones and endorses slavery
they start spinning.....
and  expain to us  that slavery isn't really so bad


another thing they reveal is their ignorance of the bible....

imagine that

they promote it
they believe in it
they want it studied in schools
and turned into law

yet
they don't even know what is in it!


----------



## rikules (Jul 5, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...





regardless of what religion any of our forefathers practiced the reality is that our nation is a secular nation.

everyone is free to practice ANY religion they want to

or no religion at all (currently the favorite flavor of about 15% of the pop.)

very few of our laws are based  on religion (in general) or christianity (specifically)

those that do exist (biblical laws) are MOSTLY unconstitutional (blue laws)

most of the 10 commandments are UNconstitutional


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 5, 2010)

Damn those evil Christians!  They should NEVER be given any consideration...only the perfect people should be allowed to form opinions.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If the definition of a Christian nation is one upon which the political structure takes into account Christian principles, and the majority of the citizens are Christian, I'd say you're full of shit and America IS a Christian nation, and you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 5, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Damn those evil Christians!  They should NEVER be given any consideration...only the perfect people should be allowed to form opinions.



Hate speech.....







your guilty


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 5, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> _Leviticus 25:44-45
> Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.   _
> 
> Talks about the buying of human beings....I don't see anything about paying them for their service



Junior this is becoming very annoying

The Bible's insistence that Israelite slaves should be treated more gently was expanded by the Talmud to insist that Jewish slaves should be granted similar food, drink, lodging, and bedding, to that which their master would grant to himself. Furthermore, the Talmud instructed that servants were not to be unreasonably penalised for being absent from work due to sickness. The biblical 7th-year manumission was still to occur after the slave had been enslaved for six years; extra enslavement couldn't be tacked on to make up for the absence, unless the slave had been absent for more than a total of four years, and if the illness didn't prevent light work (such as needlework), then the slave could be ill for all six years without having to repay the time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



See, it worked.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 5, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Damn those evil Christians!  They should NEVER be given any consideration...only the perfect people should be allowed to form opinions.



That's a silly opinion to hold.   And you seem to be alone with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> "Slavery was actively discouraged in the Bible. "
> 
> I find it rather frightening that a person could base his political convictions SO STRONGLY on something he knows so little about!



Like you are about to do?

BTW, what gives you the idea that I base my political views on the Bible, do you even know what my political views are? How old I am? What I have lived through? What I even believe about anything? My Name?

Or are you just making an ass out of yourself?



rikules said:


> site follows;
> 
> *Biblical Verses Condoning and Regulating Slavery*



I am not even going to address the rest of your post because it proves nothing. I can justify anything I want to using the right verses and ignoring other verses. the fact that people can use the Bible to justify slavery is not something I dispute, I just dispute that they were actually following the message of the Bible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> this is one those issues where the insanity of the conservative is revealed
> 
> on the one hand;
> they'll spend HOURS insisting that it was CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS (working with god) who ENDED the  liberal/atheistic/secular EVIL PRACTICE of SLAVERY
> ...



Excuse me, but there were a lot of Christians who worked tirelessly to free the slaves. There were also a lot who fought to keep them as slaves. Believe it or not, Christians are human, and can disagree with each other about what something means.

I know that explodes your belief system that the right wing cannot think for themselves and only parrot each other, but it is the truth.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 5, 2010)

bodecea said:


> txlonghorn said:
> 
> 
> > Damn those evil Christians!  They should NEVER be given any consideration...only the perfect people should be allowed to form opinions.
> ...



Actually, the logical people recognized the sarcasm and felt no need to respond.  It didn't require a response...except from .... well... you get my point.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > this is one those issues where the insanity of the conservative is revealed
> ...









They can't handle the truth


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > this is one those issues where the insanity of the conservative is revealed
> ...



Baptists played a huge part in freeing slaves, just as they played a huge part in establishing our independence. 

I think rik has established himself as a deliberately obtuse ignoramus.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They've got a great start in Texas, by rewriting history. Gosh, we can be just like Iran.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

Says the dumbshit with a mussolini siggy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> They've got a great start in Texas, by rewriting history. Gosh, we can be just like Iran.



Yep, stupid old Texas, the state that denied the ICR accreditation, even though they had it when they were based in, wait for it, California.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Says the dumbshit with a mussolini siggy.


Yes, like Mussolini, the GOP is defending Corporations. Barton spoke for the GOP when he apologized to BP.


----------



## rikules (Jul 5, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > this is one those issues where the insanity of the conservative is revealed
> ...



"Excuse me, but there were a lot of Christians who worked tirelessly to free the slaves. "


That's right.

and  FREEDOM LOVING CONSERVATIVE TRADITIONAL VALUES GOD LOVING STATES RIGHST BELIEVING CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS fought them tirelessly, to the point of killing many of them, in order to DEFEND their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to enlslave black folk

"I know that explodes your belief system that the right wing cannot think for themselves and only parrot each other, but it is the truth"

?
of course
I know for a fact that all RIGHTWINGERS are hate filled deranged lunatics and mean spirited scumbags...

but what does the fact that they are all mindless minions of their nazi facist leaders have to do with slavery?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

Oh yeah, Mussolini was right. Corporations are really fascists and the world benefits when the gov't takes over.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



You're mentally ill, aren't  you?

Please provide one scintilla of evidence for any of the hate-filled lies you spout.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



If you could read you would know I already addressed that. You should let your text to speech reader get past the first line.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Which God were they referring to in all of their writings ?



Do you not know what Deism is?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Suffice it to say, America was not founded on the principles of Atheism.
> ...



And yet the document we base our country on (The Constitution) doesn't mention Jesus or Christianity anywhere and it gives you the right to violate some of God's commandments.

Imagine that.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> The fact is all of our Founding Fathers were practicing Christians. This just can't be disputed.



Here's something from Thomas Paine where he says quite clearly that he thinks Deism is better than Christianity.

Thomas Paine On Deism


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

rikules said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.   (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)_
> ...



The Founders were radicals of their time.
The conservative Christians in the colonies at that time were TORRIES.
History lesson to the uninformed:
The Torries were on the other team.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So called "Christians" in the south considered it their god given right to own slaves. They routinely quoted the Bible to support their assertion that certain peoples place in life was to be a slave.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Junior this is becoming very annoying

The Bible's insistence that Israelite slaves should be treated more gently was expanded by the Talmud to insist that Jewish slaves should be granted similar food, drink, lodging, and bedding, to that which their master would grant to himself. Furthermore, the Talmud instructed that servants were not to be unreasonably penalised for being absent from work due to sickness. The biblical 7th-year manumission was still to occur after the slave had been enslaved for six years; extra enslavement couldn't be tacked on to make up for the absence, unless the slave had been absent for more than a total of four years, and if the illness didn't prevent light work (such as needlework), then the slave could be ill for all six years without having to repay the time.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

So what? It was still slavery no?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

Father Time said:


> So what? It was still slavery no?




You've been reading to much of uncle toms cabin slavery in the bible is not slavery as the way man looks at slavery.


----------



## Woyzeck (Jul 6, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Out of curiosity, what is Christianity's stance on the Talmud? Do they accept it as part of their religion, or is it mainly just in Judaism?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

Woyzeck said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Since rightwinger had been using Old Testament scriptures as reference I used this.
The Talmud is the oral Torah  the Christians Old Testament came from the Torah.


----------



## Cantancrus (Jul 6, 2010)

Why do we argue over the influence of Christianity? We all know right from wrong, and Rome has no place in that equation. Let's just say that the Golden Rule applies and leave religion out of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

Cantancrus said:


> Why do we argue over the influence of Christianity? We all know right from wrong, and Rome has no place in that equation. Let's just say that the Golden Rule applies and leave religion out of it.




how do you do that? 
The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cantancrus (Jul 6, 2010)

Wikipedia? You must be shitting me!


----------



## Woyzeck (Jul 6, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Woyzeck said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



That doesn't quite answer it. The Talmud is indeed the oral Torah, but the Old Testament comes from the written one. If the Old Testament included the Talmud, it'd be referred to collectively with the rest as the Old Testament. So what is Christianity's stance on the Talmud? Do they accept it, or reject? If they reject it, the further commentary on slavery in the Bible doesn't apply.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

Woyzeck said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Woyzeck said:
> ...



If you look at what I said:
the Christians Old Testament came from the Torah


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 6, 2010)

Cantancrus said:


> Wikipedia? You must be shitting me!



As much as I dislike using wiki I only use it as a reference. The golden rule came from religion and through wiki there are many religious versions of the golden rule so how do you use the golden rule and keep religion out of it?


----------



## Cantancrus (Jul 6, 2010)

As much as you hate using Wikipedia you use it when you have no other choice, if I may paraphrase.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 6, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Southern Baptists did not read the Talmud. They did however cite biblical justification for the enslavement of blacks..

Biblical Defense Of Slavery

_Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population. 

Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation. 
_


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Cantancrus said:
> 
> 
> > Wikipedia? You must be shitting me!
> ...



The golden rule is pre-religion...show us where you need a god or a belief in god to treat others like you yourself want to be treated.


----------



## Cantancrus (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cantancrus said:
> ...



According to who? I actually did some work on this subject when I was in college and if you want to assert that the so called Golden Rule pre-dates our acknowledged history, then you're the one who has to work to prove it, not me. Wikipedia isn't good enough, and your diarrhea of the mouth isn't good enough either.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Cantancrus said:
> ...



pre religion? Yes. Pre God? No. 

Like it or not your morality, and the morality of our nation comes from a Judea/Christian background. How else do you explain the difference in us and say China?


I don't wish to get involved in this thread; but those who claim our forefathers didn't have a Christian nation in mind when they formed our government are either misinformed, willfully ignorant, or just liars.


----------



## Cantancrus (Jul 6, 2010)

No, it doesn't. many of the Founders are on record as saying that Christians are bad for the country. Go chew on that for awhile, and then decide which ID you want to respond as you candyass.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

Cantancrus said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Show us where you need a god or a belief in god to figure out how to treat others like you yourself want to be treated.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Sorry, but you are WRONG.  Our Founders went out of their way to insure we had a secular government not tied to any religion including and especially Christianity in all its forms.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



*What you say is true but has NOTHING to do with what ConHog is saying....

The morality of our nation comes from a Judea/Christian background. 
This is undeniable fact....

AND

Our Founders went out of their way to insure we had a secular government not tied to any religion.
Again, undeniable fact...

Neither statement is incompatible with the other...*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

Alpha1 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Exactly what is "morality of a nation"? 
Where is that?


----------



## ConHog (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that 

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 6, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Suffice it to say, America was not founded on the principles of Atheism.


'Tis *true!!!*

And.....we haven't *matured* (as-much-as *others have*), *SINCE!!!*​


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.



The US government was never founded to endorse Christianity or to play favorites with religion.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Name an American politician who hasn't quoted the Bible? Hmm that would seem to prove MY case that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.

The rest of your post is a mess. 55% of the founding fathers were Episcopalian, why would they have ran from their own religion? What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state. Later misreadings aside. But on PRINCIPLES they were all agreed. This nation was founded on the morals taught in the Bible. 

Simple analogy. I am a Christian, I raised my family in a christian atmosphere, but they are free to believe as they see fit, well within reason since they are children of course. They can choose not to believe in God if they wish but that doesn't mean that this isn't a Christian home. 

Same as.................


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

Cantancrus said:


> No, it doesn't. many of the Founders are on record as saying that Christians are bad for the country. Go chew on that for awhile, and then decide which ID you want to respond as you candyass.



As you said yourself, it's your job to prove that or we'll just assume you have the previously mentioned mouth diarrhea.

"Christians are bad for the country" according to our founders. Go ahead and find the quotes that support that.

Jackass.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

Cantancrus said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And the reason you take personal shots out of the blue are....?  Defensive?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



It's called catering to the masses.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

Father Time said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.
> ...



Who said it was or we did?

But the fact of the matter is, the founders were Christian, and the country was founded on CHRISTIAN principles.

You can throw strawmen up all you like. Doesn't change the fact.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Cantancrus said:
> 
> 
> > No, it doesn't. many of the Founders are on record as saying that Christians are bad for the country. Go chew on that for awhile, and then decide which ID you want to respond as you candyass.
> ...



Well, what he had MEANT to say was

"Christians disapprove of my gay druggie lifestyle and also don't like my hippie girifriends getting abortions when they are too fucking stupid to use birth control on a regular basis, and that pisses me off so I'm going to jump on the "we're not a Christian nation" bandwagon."

And yes, he's a moron. I really think it's Sangha, very similar "debate style"


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Founding fathers making quotes and biblical references on buildings are not legally binding

You can provide direct references of US laws to Christian priciples...that is what this thread is about


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Most of the founders were Christians of one form or another, but the country was based on Enlightenment principles...not Christian principles.....they saw what running things based on Christianity had done to Europe and they didn't like it one bit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Quoting the Bible and kissing babies are something all politicians have to do

Doesn't mean our nation was founded on kissing babies


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It is interesting that ALL of the Ten Commandments except two would be unConstitutional if codified as law.   And the two  (don't kill, don't steal) can be found in all governments and in all religions and even non-religious philosophies.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Cantancrus said:
> ...



I thought Sangha was still posting.
Maybe not.
Can't find enough energy to care.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



It would if being a Christian means you can't support secularism but it doesn't so it proves nothing.



ConHog said:


> What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state.



Yeah right. If all they meant was freedom of religion they wouldn't have put in 'respecting an establishment of religion' because freedom of religion is all ready covered by 'prohibiting free exercise'.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...




No, it's illegal to bear false witness, too.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Only when under oath.   Lying in and of itself is not illegal.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
There are varying degrees...libel and slander are illegal as well, of course.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



We are not a nation founded on religion. Get over it. 
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their Gods.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
> There are varying degrees...libel and slander are illegal as well, of course.



So...lying is illegal period?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



"men and THEIR gods."   Well put.


----------



## ConHog (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Get over it  i find this thread mildly amusing in that some of you go out of your way to avoid the obvious, but as for getting over, I was never on it to begin with.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
> ...



Just saying.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

And adultery used to be illegal.


----------



## Intense (Jul 6, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...





Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments 

James Madison 

[1785] 




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








To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia 
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments


We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill, 
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. 

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves. 

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? 

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure. 

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. 

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits. 

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest? 

Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. 

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles. 

Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms 

Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law? 

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error. 

Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority? 

Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties. 

Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. 
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth. 
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

I don't understand what your point is.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

Madison was a Founding Father. Heopposed ANY religous influence in government. That was one of his many objections.
The religous Christians of his day wanted to access a tax for Christian schools. He opposed it just like he opposed any religous influence in our new government.
Read and see why. This opinion was the MAJORITY opinion of the Founders.
They wanted no part of religion in government and certainly did not found our government on religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

You guys don't get it.

There's a difference between using the government to promote a particular religion, and using the bible as the framework of a government.

Our government doesn't promote Christianity, and nobody should ever be discriminated against based upon their religion.

Nobody who is vocal about their beliefs should EVER be discriminated against BY the government...and that protection covers Christians as well.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 6, 2010)

The answer regarding whether the US was founded upon Christianity is I believe more complex than the OP has stated.  Were many of the original settlers Christians?  Yes.  Was American culture strongly influenced by Christianity?  Yes.  Was the original intent of the Constitution to establish Christianity in America?  No.

I think the founders did have Judeo-Christian principles in mind when writing the Constitution.  Historical writing shows the faith and belief of many of the founders and that they were very much influenced by their Christian beliefs.  I also think that many of the quotes found which seem to be a slam against Christianity are really an outward showing of distaste for the organized Christian religions of the time and the hypocrisy of not following Christian teachings.

In other words, many of those who professed to be Christian did not actually strive to follow Christian teachings.  I view some of our founders as wanting to change this and for people to return to actually following Christian teachings.  Yes, there were deists among the founders, however, I think the lack of Christians striving to follow Christian teachings may have precipitated some to be disenfranchised with organized religion and "created" these deists.

Regardless, it is clear to me that our country would be much different without the influence of Christianity through the countrys individual Christians.  There are too many who try to diminish the positive effect Christianity has had on America, including the framing of the Constitution.  In the end, each country is built by the individuals that occupy it and the majority of the founding Americans were Christian.  To try and say this did not have an effect on the establishment of America and on writing the Constitution would be incorrect.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 6, 2010)

I didn't bother reading any of this thread; I just don't understand how y'all have gone for 19 pages about something that was made as clear as day in 1796:


> [T]he Government of the United States of  America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion



Signed by John Adams


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.

Nobody except the idiot left has ever said it was founded on the Christian religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

Christopher said:


> The answer regarding whether the US was founded upon Christianity is I believe more complex than the OP has stated.  Were many of the original settlers Christians?  Yes.  Was American culture strongly influenced by Christianity?  Yes.  Was the original intent of the Constitution to establish Christianity in America?  No.
> 
> I think the founders did have Judeo-Christian principles in mind when writing the Constitution.  Historical writing shows the faith and belief of many of the founders and that they were very much influenced by their Christian beliefs.  I also think that many of the quotes found which seem to be a slam against Christianity are really an outward showing of distaste for the organized Christian religions of the time and the hypocrisy of not following Christian teachings.
> 
> ...



Well, you makd some valid points such as Christianity has had a great positive influence over all of America. No one is doubting that. Christianity is not the question. 
The US Constitution is the law that the founders BASED THIS COUNTRY ON. 
The Constituion, specifically the seperation of powers, was adopted from the Greek Constitution.
The Greeks at that time were not Christian.
The problem that I see here is a complete failure of the religous right TO ADMIT that it is the US Constitution THAT THIS COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON.
Never was religion. Hint: Christianity is a religion. 
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their Gods and religion. 
Now admit it and get over it. You will feel better.
The United States of America was founded on LAWS.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

&#8220;The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity&#8230;I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.&#8221; 
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

&#8220;We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!&#8221;
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in &#8220;the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

&#8226; &#8220;[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.&#8221;
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]

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

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

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

John Adams : Quotes from a Christian


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.
> 
> Nobody except the idiot left has ever said it was founded on the Christian religion.



You mean Christian values such as slavery, womanizing, having kids with slaves, smuggling, drinking, gambling and brewing spirits?
You may want to teach those kind of values as Christian to your kids but I don't.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.




Not quite. Compare the secular to the biblical Law. It is founded on the Liberal ideology and the Christian religions only indirectly influenced their thinking through the common ethic- much of which holds near-universal across the majority of the world's ethical codices and laws.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.
> ...



Much better we teach them the things the Greeks found worthy.

BTW, the greeks had slaves, too. I believe they made their own brewski, as well.

Anyway, the rest of your post is likewise without merit. As are most of your posts. The point of the matter is that you have no right to tell me what I may or may not teach my children. I can teach my children the tenets of Christianity, because as a free society and one which was founded on Christian principles, I have that right. As you do. 

I also have the right to elect representatives which reflect my own beliefs. In our country, they are protected when it comes to voicing their religious views, and nobody is allowed to shut them up. Period. Ever.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > The answer regarding whether the US was founded upon Christianity is I believe more complex than the OP has stated.  Were many of the original settlers Christians?  Yes.  Was American culture strongly influenced by Christianity?  Yes.  Was the original intent of the Constitution to establish Christianity in America?  No.
> ...



As I said, Christianity obviously influenced the writing of the Constitution, which was my main point.  While I agree on most of what you have said I would like to clarify what this country was founded versus built upon, at the risk of getting somewhat off topic.  Yes, this country was founded on the Constitution, I have no problem admitting this.  However, I think the story of Americas success goes further than this.  It was the actions of many individuals which actually BUILT (vs founded) the country.

The Constitution gave the freedom for individuals to take their own actions towards a better society, so it provided the means for it.  The majority of Americans at the time were taught or strived to follow Christian teachings.  I think a large part of what BUILT America was through personal sacrifices, individuals helping other individuals, etc.  In other words, it was much of the Christian teachings, beliefs and influences of the time which helped BUILD the country.

Comparing this to today, we still have the Constitution, yet there are many less willing to sacrifice or help each other and take those individual actions which create a better society.  It seems to me that we are continuing down the path of being more forced into a better society, rather than from our own individual free will.  At least that is my perception and it is what I believe is making us a less great nation.


----------



## rikules (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.
> 
> Nobody except the idiot left has ever said it was founded on the Christian religion.




"It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop"

it was PARTLY founded on christian values


MOST of those (christian values) were values that christian stole from the greeks and hammurabi.

I must ask....is insulting people and calling them names a christian value?

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

"Nobody except the idiot left has ever said it was founded on the Christian religion"

no you are showing (once again) just how ill-informed you truly are....

LOTS of evangelical christians have said that America was founded on the christan religion...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 6, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



_As I said, Christianity obviously influenced the writing of the Constitution, which was my main point.  While I agree on most of what you have said I would like to clarify what this country was founded versus built upon  _

Could you point out which portions of the Constitition are Christian influenced?
The Preamble?
The Legislative Branch?
The Executive Branch?
The Judicial Branch?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 6, 2010)

This is a Christmastime letter to liberals.....but still it's appropriate here because it addresses the anti-Christian sentiment that liberals typically voice in their thousands of threads like this one...



> Merry Christmas. If that offends you, why should I care? Its your problem, not mine. Let me explain your problem a little more fully. America is a Christian country. Its your job to deal with that, because youre not going to change this fact. America has always been a Christian country, and - open wide now, because youre going to have to swallow this - it will continue to be.
> 
> It will continue to be because most Americans arent Euroweenies. They havent lost the moral courage to be proud of their country and their civilization. Notice the most - which you are not a part of.
> 
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> This is a Christmastime letter to liberals.....but still it's appropriate here because it addresses the anti-Christian sentiment that liberals typically voice in their thousands of threads like this one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By stating the FACT that this Country is not based on Christianity, how is that being anti-Christian?  Who has advocated getting rid of Christianity and Christians in this country?  Please name them and link their posts from those thousands of threads you refer to.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.
> ...



Really? LOTS? Of evangelical Christians? 


Lol. Can't get much more vague than that. Link, please. Numbers. Names.
And whether or not it's a Christian act to call names is for another thread.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > This is a Christmastime letter to liberals.....but still it's appropriate here because it addresses the anti-Christian sentiment that liberals typically voice in their thousands of threads like this one...
> ...



Spoken like a typical Euroweenie.....and if you are not aware of the constant leftist attack on Christianity...you are just not aware...

And the FACT IS... this country DOES have its roots based in Christianity.....here are some examples....



> Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered. Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents. This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.
> 
> *Principle: Reliance on the Providence of God *
> 
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> This is a Christmastime letter to liberals.....but still it's appropriate here because it addresses the anti-Christian sentiment that liberals typically voice in their thousands of threads like this one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am no liberal. Additionally, I am a Christian and a proud American.
Respect is earned no matter what your religion is or lack of. 
Remember that. 
I fell off my dinosaur the first time I heard that one about "You are a liberal" if someone had a different view than what they learn in Sunday school.
My argument is from a conservative view point.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> > Merry Christmas. If that offends you, why should I care? It&#8217;s your problem, not mine. Let me explain your problem a little more fully. America is a Christian country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

We do NOT have a secular government.

Another incorrect premise propagated by the progressives.

We have NEVER had a secular government. That's why we use THE BIBLE when judges, congressmen, police, the PRESIDENT are sworn in. 

None of the rest of your rambling diatribe matters, because it comes down to that.


----------



## Intense (Jul 6, 2010)

The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.

[COLOR="Red"[COLOR="Red"]]Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life. If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity, established for the preservation of those things, his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment, consisting of the deprivation or diminution of those civil interests, or goods, which otherwise he might and ought to enjoy. But seeing no man does willingly suffer himself to be punished by the deprivation of any part of his goods, and much less of his liberty or life, therefore, is the magistrate armed with the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.

Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate.

*First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men.* It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever profession we make, to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true and the other well pleasing unto God, such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto Him, we add unto the number of our other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty.

*In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God.* And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that they have framed of things.

*It may indeed be alleged that the magistrate may make use of arguments, and, thereby; draw the heterodox into the way of truth, and procure their salvation. I grant it; but this is common to him with other men. In teaching, instructing, and redressing the erroneous by reason, he may certainly do what becomes any good man to do. Magistracy does not oblige him to put off either humanity or Christianity; but it is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties. This civil power alone has a right to do; to the other, goodwill is authority enough.* Every man has commission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error, and, by reasoning, to draw him into truth; but to give laws, receive obedience, and compel with the sword, belongs to none but the magistrate. 

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration


----------



## Alpha1 (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Alpha1 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The "morality of a nation" is expressed in its body of laws and how those laws are administered by the elected government.....
By how the citizens allow those laws to be administered....

One need only compare Shira law of Muslims to "Christian" of western nations....just about ALL of what we call the western nations are based on "Christian principles" and Christian values....as opposed to Asia and the Middle East and their body of law and values (morality) if you will....


----------



## Christopher (Jul 6, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Try reading this book, if you are honestly interested: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Constitution-Faith-Founding-Fathers/dp/0801052319]Amazon.com: Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (9780801052316): John Eidsmoe: Books[/ame]

I believe Eidsmoe is quite fair in his assessment of the the influence of Christianity in the Constitution.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh yeah, Mussolini was right. Corporations are really fascists and the world benefits when the gov't takes over.


Mussolini merged Corporations and Government. His Government didn't take over Corporations.
Thus his famous quote:


----------



## Father Time (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> We do NOT have a secular government.
> 
> Another incorrect premise propagated by the progressives.
> 
> ...



Except they can choose not to use the Bible if they aren't Christian.

And we have a clause in the Constitution that says no religious test for public office.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 6, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Another one?  *yawn*

The US was founded on Judeo-Christianity.  Like it or not.  Deny all you want.  Twist all you want.  You libs can't even read the second in english.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

Gunny said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



The US was not founded on religion. Just because the religion of the founders was Christianity in no way makes this nation founded on religion. 
Baseball was founded in America. Baseball was not founded on Judeo-Christianity.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 6, 2010)

Gunny said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



Deism is not Judeo-Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Like it or not we're not becoming a Judeo-Christian theocracy anytime soon.  No need to re-write history.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> We do NOT have a secular government.
> 
> Another incorrect premise propagated by the progressives.
> 
> ...



Where in the law is there any mention of religion? 
We are a nation of LAWS.
How hard is that for you to understand? Religion is not an accepted form of government in any form. A secular government is what the Founders set up with the seperation of powers.
What role does religion play in our government? Tell us where that power is defined someplace, anyplace, somewhere, ANYWHERE in the law or the Constitution.
You have no evidence as usual. Give it up. There is no evidence that religion plays any role and has any authority in our government.
There is a reason for that. Thank God for it. God and religion ARE NOT a part of this government. They do it that way in Iran. We don't.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > We do NOT have a secular government.
> ...



Exactly...we have secular (small s) govt.....we are a nation of laws....our Christian Founders protected the individual right to practice religion (or not) as we see fit through Constitutional law....and the law also says we cannot establish a government religion....you don't have that in Iran...where they have theocracy...muslims don't "render unto Caesar" if they don't have to...

....which is why Islam is a threat to our country if they start to establish sharia law....

....i also consider Secularism (capital S...which i consider a form of "religion") to also be a threat to this country's religious freedoms...religion does play an indirect role in government...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2010)

The only way you can pretend that the Founders didn't base this nation in fundamental Judeo-Christian values is to be completely ignorant of what they actually said and did. And to likewise be completely ignorant of Judeo-Christian values.

"Chose ye this day, whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 6, 2010)

We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.


Sky


WHO said theocracy?  Avatar said values?  there is a difference, a big one, no?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 6, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.
> ...



Deism is not Judeo-Christianity.  We are NOT a Christian nation.  If we were we would be a theocracy.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Sky, I don't think anyone is saying the us is a theocracy, just because they say it was founded with Judeo/Christian VALUES.....not to say that some fundamentalists may wish it were a theocracy at times.

what is being said and should be considered is that the founding Fathers were not in a vacuum....

MOST were Christians with a few Deists in there that were signers of the constitution/declaration and in addition to this, one living in this era were the citizens the founders were giving these rights to, they WERE CHRISTIANS with Christian values the elite and the poor....the baker, the launderer, the grocer, the farmer the doctor, the mayors and governors, the Intelect throughout the country being formed were mostly Christians....even if one were an athiest or deist in religious beliefs they could not help but being influenced by their environment, by their surroundings and in the ways their communities functioned imo.

that's all that is being said by me on this topic...to deny this is just plain silly...again, imo.

Care


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 6, 2010)

Looks to me like the US is a Christian country...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.



NOBODY said we WERE.

Is that better?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

Gunny said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



No it wasn't...more Enlightenment with a dash of Freemasonry.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 6, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Looks to me like the US is a Christian country...



No...Christianity is the predominate religion of our country...but it doesn't RUN our country.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 6, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Are you serious here?  LOL

Would you like me to provide examples of each one of their own personal writing showing they beleived in god?

Here lets start with jefferson's OWlN WORDS and i'll let people decide if they want adams, frankin, and even paine.

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. 

"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like the US is a Christian country...
> ...



Of course not....a specific religion cannot legally run our country......elected people do.....people with different belief systems....MOST of whom claim to be regular Christians....

However right now we have a "christian" muslim marxist running the show....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 6, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



I prefer sage with my Enlightenment.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



So "The Enlightenment" is where all those smarty elitist liberals got their start....? 

I wouldn't think Freemasonry... as they believed in God....


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Gunny said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



Since one of the MAIN points of the constitution was FREEDOM OF RELIGION

one could readily accept the premise that America IS a secular nation and has always been one.


however
since it is true that certain judeo christian principles were the standards in America;

enslaving people, brutally beating slaves
denying women equal rights
laws against homosexuality
laws demanding church attendance
state constitutions denying NON-christians the right to vote or hold public office...

one can also understand the premise "America was FOUNDED on judeo christan lunacies"

fortunately
we have realized just how rotten many of those judeo christan principles were and we have discarded them

now
we have moved far beyond the primitive ignorance of judeo chrisrian principles and have become a much more enlightened and secular nation

we never really were a christian nation

today we are less of one than ever

at least so far as laws and rules go


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

Where is your supporting evidence, you geek?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I disagree.  We are NOT a Christian nation.  Not then, not now.  The founding fathers were deists.  


Deism has no church and no official organization, hence, it is not considered a religion. It is more a reason-based view of religion in general. Deism is sometimes referred to as a religious philosophy or a religious outlook. In general, Deism did not see Christ as the Son of God, did not believe in the Trinity, had no strong belief in miracles, and had no belief in atonement or resurrection. The Bible was not considered &#8220;sacred text&#8221; among most Deists, although most Deists were (like Franklin) Christian-friendly.
http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

And back to square one.
Yes, we are a Christian nation. We are made up primarily of Christians, and our government was built and is maintained with the application of Christian principles.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

We are NOT a Christian nation.  That is a myth promalgated by fundamentalists seeking to establish a Christian theocracy.   America is a plurality.  We have no state religion, Christian or otherwise.  We have laws protecting our freedom to practice religion or not be oppressed by it.

Let's keep it that way.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

Do you sometimes confuse meditation with messageboarding? Because you get into these weird mantras.

Sky..saying it over and over won't make it true. Not in this instance.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible. 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe. 

The Christian Nation Myth


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky, as the old adage goes, arguing with Allie is like arguing with a pig. It's pointless because the pig is ignorant and dumb, and it annoys the pig...You are in a lose-lose situation. The good thing is right-wing, Christian neocon whackjobs are easily identified. The pity is, they should have to take some sort of IQ test to allowed to be vote....


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

The US Treaty with Tripoli


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.  

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Art. 11. 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.
US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.



That would be because we are a Republic and not a Theocracy.

A first grader knows that.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yeah, all that talk of serving Christ was just stuff they said to say it. And they never meant any of those prayers.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > We are NOT a Judeo Christian theocracy.
> ...



Alibaba doesn't.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



There are no Christian prayers in the Constitution.  God isn't even mentioned.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> There are no Christian prayers in the Constitution.  God isn't even mentioned.



The Founding is much more than simply the Constitution. You can't just ignore everything and pretend as though Judeo-Christian values had absolutely nothing to do with our Founding, to the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Republic created because of them.

Go to the actual sources. But I doubt you will.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.


Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





> Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.


 Doesn't that make you even a little curious? Especially since the Bible seems to upset so many that insist we are NOT a nation derived by Christians.



> That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.


 And believers in the Creator of Heaven and Earth...God...some call them Christians.



> No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
> However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.


 Well, there are references to Christianity all through the historical base of the founding of this nation. Legal docs, I couldn't be certain. But here are a couple of documents...charters and what not...that could suffice, for some anyway...

The First Charter of Virginia (granted by King James I, on April 10, 1606)
&#8226; We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God&#8230;
Instructions for the Virginia Colony (1606)
Lastly and chiefly the way to prosper and achieve good success is to make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your own, and to serve and fear God the Giver of all Goodness, for every plantation which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

William Bradford
&#8226; wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
&#8226; 1) "a better, and easier place of living&#8221;; and that &#8220;the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]&#8220;
&#8226; 2) &#8220;The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"
The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
&#8220;Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together&#8230;&#8221;
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



By dictionary definition, deists, atheists, and agnostics are synonymous and include those who believe there is no God at all; those who believe there is no way to know if God exists; and those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe. 

Dr. Franklin's Plea for Prayer to a Non-Deistic God

This is very interesting stuff if you can stick with it long enough.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



But the Constitutional Convention was covered in prayer and the mention of God....


----------



## Care4all (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



do you believe our Nation of Christians who ratified the Constitution were well aware that our founding fathers were Deists?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Well, you are getting there Eagle. 
The part that gets under my skin is this Christian victim mentality. The false claim by the fundementalist that I am attemtping to ban Christianity because I want no part  of it in government. 
Islam is not a threat to our government unless we continue to fight ALL religous influence in government, no matter how good we view some such as the good things in Christianity. Radical Islam is NOW  a real threat to our country. 
Kill all the radical Muslims and let Allah sort them out.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 7, 2010)

also, why did the founding Fathers that were Deists continue to attend Christian Churches?

and how Many of the original signers of the constitution and declaration were Deists and how many were Christians?

It was the Christians that did not want an Established religion and Christians that did not want in any manner a theocracy at the time.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


The best and most powerful argument that we are not founded on religion.
They did exactly that and then INTENTIONALLY left out God, prayers, religion and any mention of anything religous in ALL of our laws.
There was a reason for that. Guess what it was?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



Wrongo dancing flower girl.....you obviously are a product of our librul propaganda education system....which has perverted our history books with an anti-Christian flavor...there actually were only a handful of deists and quasi-deists....MOST of the founding fathers were Protestants...i.e., Christians....

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



It's well documented that they looked to the bible as the blueprint for freedom.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> txlonghorn said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Because they did not want the state to be able to dictate religion.

Which is fine. But does nothing to support the premise that we're a SECULAR nation or that we are non-Christian. The founding fathers talked often, long and hard about the role of God in the creation and maintenance of our nation. 

Jefferson wanted a much more obvious Christian slant to everything. The Baptists talked him out of it.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Getting where?  It's an historical fact that the Christian founding fathers of this country purposely established a secular government that allows for the free practice of religion....that in no way declared the people of our country to be Secularists...

The "Christian victim mentality" is a direct product of the anti-Christian agenda growing within our country....led by the communist et al statist lefties....banning stupid things like saying Merry Christmas  is simply attacking our heritage and culture and the reality that most Americans are Christian....it is not "protecting" our government from theocracy...instead it is actually restricting our free practice of religion...

Yes, Islam is a theocratic relgion which is a threat to our secular government.....but so is "Secularism"....which one could say is the "religion" of the Left...

...haven't you ever wondered why the Lefties and Islam are in bed together....?


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> ...




right

which is why blacks had NO freedom but were, instead, slaves

and why women had few rights

thanks to that bible

would you prefer to go back to THAT type of government?

or
do you think our founding fathers (and the bible) were wrong on those points?


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> The only way you can pretend that the Founders didn't base this nation in fundamental Judeo-Christian values is to be completely ignorant of what they actually said and did. And to likewise be completely ignorant of Judeo-Christian values.
> 
> "Chose ye this day, whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."



You could go a step further and realize that the Founders, like Locke, having based our Law's on Judeo-Christian Principles, as a Foundation, in fact kept Government non-secular for a very important reason. One cannot legislate Salvation. It cannot be forced on anyone. The matters of the flesh, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, are under the watch of the powers that be, by the consent of the whole. We do not want or need magistrates governing the do's and don't of the Spirit. We do not want Sect's battling over Jurisdiction and who's version of doctrine rules the land. We are free to choose, to participate or not participate as we will. That is the point. Let Conscience dictate. When Madison gave us separation of Church and State, he told us to put Conscience before the State. Do not sacrifice Conscience or Principle simply because you may be outnumbered.


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...





"The "Christian victim mentality" is a direct product of the anti-Christian agenda growing within our country....led by the communist et al statist lefties....banning stupid things like saying Merry Christmas  is simply attacking our heritage and culture and the reality that most Americans are Christian...."

actually
you have it assbackwards

NOBODY has banned the words "meryr christmas"

however

there is a contingency of deranged conservatives (there's a shock)
who are actively working to ban any words that are NOT "merry christmas"


try saying "happy holidays" to a conservative and then feel his wrath


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



You may be rewriting History a bit here. Was Locke a Deist? I think not. Jefferson and Madison are more rooted in his brand than Deism. It may serve a corrupted vision to claim Deism, though it is still a tangent, that diverts from the truth.


On this Page: 
- signers of the Declaration of Independence 
- signers of the Articles of Confederation 
- Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution 
Ennumerating the Founding Fathers 
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.) 

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution. 

There were 95 Senators
 and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following: 

- signed the Declaration of Independence 
- signed the Articles of Confederation 
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America 
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791) 
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress 

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more. 





Religion of the Founding Fathers of America


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

THE
Jefferson Bible 
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels


Compiled by Thomas Jefferson 

Edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr. 




. . . Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative.
This presentation of The Jefferson Bible offers the text as selected and arranged by Jefferson in two separate editions: one edition uses a revised King James Version of the biblical texts, corrected in accordance with the findings of modern scholarship; the second edition uses the original unrevised KJV. The actual verses of the Bible used for both editions are those chosen by Jefferson. Visitors should find the revised KJV text much easier to read and understand. Those seeking the precise English version Mr. Jefferson used when making his compilation can click on "Unrevised KJV text."


The Jefferson Bible is now available in Spanish:
La Biblia de Jefferson
And in German:
Die Jefferson-Bibel 


INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Jefferson's Compilation 

Jefferson's Syllabus Comparing Jesus and Other Philosophers 


THE LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS 

Early Years and Ministry               [Unrevised KJV text] 
Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born; He is circumcised and named and they return to Nazareth. At 12 years of age, he accompanies his parents to Jerusalem and returns. John baptises in Jordan. Jesus is baptised at 30 years of age. He drives the traders out of the temple. He baptises but retires into Galilee on the death of John. He teaches in the Synagogue, explains the Sabbath. Call of his disciples. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
The sermon on the mount.
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
The sermon on the mount (continued).
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Exhortations. A woman anointeth him. Precepts. Parable of the rich man.
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Precepts. Parable of the Sower. Parable of the Tares.
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Precepts. Parable of new wine in old bottles. A prophet hath no honor in his own country. Mission, instruction, and return of apostles. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Precepts. Parable of the wicked servant. Mission of the Seventy. The feast of the tabernacles.
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
The woman taken in adultery. To be born blind is no proof of sin. The good shepherd. Love God and thy neighbor. Parable of the Samaritan. Form of prayer. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
The Sabbath. The bidden to a feast. Precepts. Parables of the lost sheep and the Prodigal son. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Parable of the unjust steward. Parable of Lazarus. Precepts: to be always ready. Parables of the widow and judge, the Pharisee and Publican. Precepts. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Precepts. Parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Zaccheus, and the parable of the talents. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Goes to Jerusalem and Bethany. The traders cast out from the temple. Parable of the two sons. Parable of the vineyard and husbandmen. Parable of the king and the wedding feast. On tribute, marriage, and resurrection. The two greatest commandments. 
Teachings and Parables                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
Precepts: pride, hypocrisy, swearing. The widow's mite. Jerusalem and the day of judgment. The faithful and wise servant. 
The End Times                             [Unrevised KJV text] 
Parable of the ten virgins. The parable of the talents. The day of judgment.
The Betrayal                                 [Unrevised KJV text] 
A woman anointeth him. Judas undertakes to point out Jesus. Precepts to his disciples. Washes their feet. Troubled of mind, and prayer. 
Arrest and Condemnation               [Unrevised KJV text] 
Judas conducts the officers to Jesus. He is arrested and carried before Caiaphas the High Priest and is condemned. He is then carried to Pilate, who sends him to Herod. 
Crucifixion, Death and Burial         [Unrevised KJV text] 
Pilate receives him back, scourges and delivers him to execution. His crucifixion, death and burial. 

The Jefferson Bible


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> ...



I don't believe in 'our nation of Christians'.  We have a nation that has religious freedom and that was the founders intention.  Fundamentalists want to rewrite history in an attempt to make our country a Christian theocracy. America was not founded on Christianity. It was founded on European Enlightenment philosophy designed by John Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu.   It was not founded  by Christians, but rather by Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. It was called the last best hope for humanity for a reason: That in the darkness of Christian domination of Europe, a country was born that was not founded on Biblical supremacism but rather on reason and intelligence. And it is intelligence, and not Christianity, that made possible for America to rise as high as it did.

The Constitution does not mention God or religion, except for Article 6 which prohibits religious tests for public office. Article 6 meant that any free, propertied man, religious or nonreligious, Christian or non-Christian, could vote and hold public office. If the framers, had wanted to declare a special place for Christianity in governance and society, they would have done so. But they didn't. The Christian nationalists have to engage in some rather spectacular evasions to get around this inescapable fact.
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
    But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
    It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
    It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
    It is dominion we are after.
    World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

In the Christian nationalist vision of America, non-believers would be free to worship as they choose, as long as they know their place. When Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala became the first Hindu priest to offer an invocation before Congress, the Family Research Council issued a furious statement that reveals much about the America they'd like to create:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage...Our founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."
Talk To Action | What is Christian nationalism?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Exactly...I read a post a few years back from someone who admittedly screamed at a group of High Schoolers at a Barnes and Noble who were offering Holiday Present wrapping...their sign said Holiday Present Wrapping, not Christmas Present Wrapping.....


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"
> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
> But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
> It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
> ...



Ah...those Dominionists.   They also want to create their own country...in South Carolina, I believe.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Are you one of those vampire types that recoils in horror whenever someone flashes a cross....?


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



and THAT is why I think you cons are scum.....

there we were
having a conversation

you stating something completely untrue....
(with NO evidence to back it up)

me correcting you with reality

and then YOU resorting to attacks and insults....

gosh
my
how..."conservative"...of you.....

I have no problem with MOST christians.
MOST christians are NOT ....like you...

MOST christians are moderates (or even liberals)

MOST christians are NOT trying to impose theiur reliogious beliefs on everyone...

my problem, is with the group of christians ARE trying to impose their religion on everyone...


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



So your real problem is you hate fundamentalists...?  

Then you might also keep your eye on those fundamentalist muslims...can't get much more fundamental than them....seems to me they are heck more of a danger to this country than those dominionists...you know...the kind of fundamentalists that come here to kill people...and to establish sharia law...


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



See, that's the funny thing about hyperbole....have you any indication that any of us here do recoil at the sight of someone wearing a cross?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Absolutely...hard core fundamentalists.   Fundamentalist Christians are just the other side of the coin from fundamentalist Muslims.   They both would kill or torture those who don't toe their line if they could get away with it.  Right now, in the ME, fundamentalist Muslims can, in some countries, get away with it.   What makes you think fundamentalist Christians wouldn't do the same thing if they had a government that backed them?  (For an example, look to what the Puritans did to others when they had a Church run government in the Massachusetts Bay Colony)


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Of course you think cons are scum....you are an idiot librul....when someone starts by claiming i've got things "backasswards" and claiming that "nobody" is attempting to ban the expression of Christmas i know i am dealing with a librul halfwit...

There may be some fringe Christian groups (quite minor) that want to "dominate"....they are not any threat....but you libruls sure know how to shriek and scream and make a MOUNTAIN out of a molelhill....

...however the FACT is there is a MUCH LARGER group of people ....called progressive secularists....that are ANTI-Christian....what is your position on them.....pray tell...?

...or don't you libruls have any concern about religious freedom when it comes to Christians....?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



heh....i doubt you do....being an old vampire who's developed some immunity.....


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Ah, I see.   If you have nothing, you go personal.   Gotcha.    Is that a fundamentalist christian trait, or just yours?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> ...



Really, what part of the Bible shows freedom...the kind of freedom incorporated in our Constitution?  

Please point out the chapters, verses, or books.  TIA


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



"Of course you think cons are scum....you are an idiot librul"

no no no

my being a "librul idiot"
has NOTHING to do with why I think cons like you are scum....

(you stupid person, you)

the reason I think cons (like you) are SCUM is because;

a. cons HATE everyone who isn't a deranged conservative lunatic
b. cons MOCK and RIDICULE everyone who isn't a deranged conservative lunatic
c. cons smell
d. cons resort to personal attacks when they can't use logic
e. cons HAVE NO LOGIC so they ALWAYS resort to personal attacks
f. cons stink
g. cons blame ALL the problems in America on liberals
h. cons REFUSE to accept any responsibility for the problems in America
I with cons it is alwasy "attack! hate! blame! accuse! deny!...repeat often..."


"....when someone starts by claiming i've got things "backasswards" and claiming that "nobody" is attempting to ban the expression of Christmas i know i am dealing with a librul halfwit..."


you DO have things "assbackwards"

could you list any evidence that "libruls" are attempting to BAN the words "merry christmas"

what?
NO!?!?!?

you CAN'T!!!!!!!

because you have NO EVIDENCE!?


"There may be some fringe Christian groups (quite minor) that want to "dominate"....they are not any threat....but you libruls sure know how to shriek and scream and make a MOUNTAIN out of a molelhill...."


I see
"some" fringe groups

like...bill oreilly and sean hannity and rush limbaugh and fox news?

like pat robertson and the christian coalition?

fringe groups?

too small to be any threat?

my my...

you are truly a deranged lunatic

poor pathetic little you


"...however the FACT is there is a MUCH LARGER group of people ....called progressive secularists....that are ANTI-Christian....what is your position on them.....pray tell...?"


much larger group?

could you show some stats?
some evidence
any proof?

look

try to follow the FACTS;

85% of the population is CHRISTIAN

I will assume that ONLY NON_christians would be ANTI-christian

that means that at most 15% of the population is ANTI-christian

and I know for a fact that most of those people are NOT anti-christian

disbelief in god and disassociation with religion does NOT AUTOMATICALLY make someone ANTI-CHRISTIAN (I must say...it takes a very stupid person to make THAT deranged leap of logic..."if you are NOT a christian then you are ANTI-CHRISTIAN!")

more:  the FRINGE groups of christians that you dismiss so readily have tv and radio stations ALL OVER the country

I get 5 tv stations with RIGHT WING EVANGELICAL preaching 
I get 3 radio stations with the same content

s'far as I can tell those progessive secularists dont' have ANY tv or radio stations...

pat robertosn claims to have 20-30 milion followers
ALMOST ALL of whom agree with him on his EXTREME positions


"...or don't you libruls have any concern about religious freedom when it comes to Christians....? "


see
there you go again
making up lies

I am an atheist
I believe all people have a right to  worship ANY GOD or NO GOD at all
I believe liberal and moderate christians are relatively decent people
I believe that right wing evangelical christians are a threat to MY freedom
I believe you are an idiot


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Whatsamatta....can't take a joke....?

I have plenty....and I'm not even a fundy......go figure....

btw....did you say something that merited an intelligent repsonse...?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



And here it is folks......a nice display of the librul secularist progressive verbal diarrhea....

No evidence...?  Read from even wiki....
"In recent decades, public, corporate, and government mention of the term "Christmas" during the Christmas and holiday season has declined and been replaced with a generic term&#8212; usually "holiday(s)" or "winter"&#8212; to avoid referencing the holiday by name. In addition, popular non-religious aspects of Christmas, such as Christmas carols and decorated trees, are still prominently showcased and recognized, but are vaguely associated with unspecified "holidays" rather than with Christmas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy

There are plenty of anti-Christian activities by the secular progressive Left in recent years....or don't you vampy types get out much....?

PS....if those radio stations bother you so much.....all you need to do is turn the knob....


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You obviously didn't read post #292...(page 20)


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



If right wing fundamentalist push that everyone who isn't like them are automatically anti-Christian...if they had governmental power, how long before bad things start happening to people not like them?


----------



## pinqy (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle;2483076No evidence...?  Read from even wiki....
"In recent decades said:


> Christmas controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]



But that's not a ban.  Surely you're not suggesting it should be mandatory to use the term Christmas.  If people prefer "holidays" for whatever reason, why is that a problem?  Does it offend you?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Seriously?     That's what you call a distinct connection?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Shocking tho it may seem to you....not everyone celebrates Christian Christmas in December...there are other holidays too.  So, explain to us how being more inclusive of ALL celebrating in December is such a horrible thing to Christians?  Or is this just MORE evidence that if you guys had political control of our government, the rest of us would be up shit creek without a paddle?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Why not?  

Were our founding fathers roots from the Koran?  No.
The Upanishads?  No.
The I Ching?  No.
The Tao-te-ching?  No. 

Our founding fathers got inspiration from the Bible...as well as from philosophers of the Renaissance...


----------



## Father Time (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> The "Christian victim mentality" is a direct product of the anti-Christian agenda growing within our country



 Name me one law that is designed to punish Christians?



ScreamingEagle said:


> ....led by the communist et al statist lefties....banning stupid things like saying Merry Christmas



Show me where saying Merry Christmas is banned by law.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



God forbid Barnes and Noble be allowed to wrap a Hannukah present.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"
> ...



I thought it was Texas.  Let Texas secede.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/26936/christian-dominionists-lies-for-jesus-and-the-schoolbook-changes/


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism is not Judeo-Christianity.  We are NOT a Christian nation.  If we were we would be a theocracy.



Most of the people you call Deists called themselves Christian. Are you another of those idiots that think only their definition of Christian is appropriate?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:
			
		

> Shocking tho it may seem to you....not everyone celebrates Christian Christmas in December...there are other holidays too. So, explain to us how being more inclusive of ALL celebrating in December is such a horrible thing to Christians? Or is this just MORE evidence that if you guys had political control of our government, the rest of us would be up shit creek without a paddle?


Shocking tho it may seem to you....but Christmas is a NATIONAL HOLIDAY...

Federal holidays in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism is not Judeo-Christianity.  We are NOT a Christian nation.  If we were we would be a theocracy.
> ...



Which Founding Fathers are you refererencing?  The intent of the Consitution was to leave God out.  Only one reference to not making religion a requirement for public office.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

pinqy said:


> ScreamingEagle;2483076No evidence...?  Read from even wiki....
> "In recent decades said:
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it offends me....once again....Christmas is a NATIONAL HOLDIDAY...is that a problem for YOU?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism is not Judeo-Christianity.  We are NOT a Christian nation.  If we were we would be a theocracy.
> ...



Are you one of the people that think Christianity is in the Constitution?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> 
> 
> Jefferson, Franklin, and the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were anticlerical Deists.... They created America as an experiment in democracy, freedom and humanism.



They called themselves Christians. No one else, except God, has any right to question their claims about their beliefs. Are you now claiming to speak for Him? If so, I will lump you in with Neubarth and scoff at everything you say.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Deism was the prevailing philosophy of our founding fathers.  It is well documented.  Deism is a belief in God based on reason and nature.
> ...



Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madision were deists.

Washington is quoted in the Treaty of Tripoli as claiming American is NOT a Christian nation.

Scroll back.  I've provided plenty of evidence.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And...?  So is New Years and Labor Day and Memorial Day and 4th of July and Columbus Day.   But Easter (supposedly the most important exclusively Christian holiday) is not.   

But sounds to me like you think that only Christians should get Christmas off?   Or Christmas is a national holiday only because of Christians and their form of celebration....


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Actually, that was John Quincy Adams....Washington was more religious and is known to not be all that thrilled at the secular format of our government...but then again, he was ok with slave holding too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"
> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
> But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
> It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
> ...



Counter their lies with truth, not lies. 

Trust me on this, if you ever want to tangle a fundamentalist Christian in a knot, show him that the person he is holding up as an example did not believe the exact same thing he did. If you go around claiming that they were not Christian, all they have to do is look at the words they wrote and see that you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of them openly claimed to be Christian. Your ignorant claims only supports their position, because they can dismiss you as person with an anti-Christian agenda who resorts to lies.

Guess what, they are right, even if you don't think they are.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle;2483076No evidence...?  Read from even wiki....
> ...


BTW...not everyone gets Christmas off...and Christmas comes from two words...Christ and Mass.....do you go to Mass to celebrate the day?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

Father Time said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > The "Christian victim mentality" is a direct product of the anti-Christian agenda growing within our country
> ...



I never said saying Merry Christmas is banned by LAW...secularists are pushing the banning of Merry Christmas by making complaints and pushing their "political correctness" crap...substituting "happy holidays", etc.

The ACLU is a secular organization which is spearheading much of the anti-Christian shennanigans....are you aware of this?



> When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
> 
> Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted." [1]
> 
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who , in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"
> ...



I linked the Treaty of Tripoli which clearly states that American is NOT a Christian nation.  It is one of the first international claims by the newly formed US government.  

If you think that's ignorant I'm sorry.  I haven't lied about this document.

As to the Founding Fathers:

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church. 

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died. 

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." 

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist." 
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Deuteronomy 6:5
Luke 6:31


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You are right about the Constitution, but that does not make the Founders deists, it just makes them smart and cynical. They believed that tying religion and government together would always lead to persecution because people were inherently evil. Why eslse would they go to so much trouble to limit the power of the federal government?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote: 

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. 

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." 
Little-Known U.S. Document Proclaims America's Government is Secular - The Early America Review, Summer 1997


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Show me anywhere I have said that and you might have a point, otherwise you are just treating me the same way you claim not to want to be treated. It is sad to see how often people do exactly what they condemn when given the chance.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I asked a question  You answered.  End of story.

Benjamin Franklin was a Deist:

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. 

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist." 

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote: 

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England." 

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle;2483076No evidence...?  Read from even wiki....
> ...




seems to me you FIRST stated that "THEY (evil liberals) are trying to BAN the words MERRY CHRISTMAS"

in fact
I KNOW you said it.

after which a number of us pointed out that YOU had it ASSBACKWARDS

that it was deranged lunatics like you who got OFFENDED any time someone did NOT say MERRY CHRISTMAS but, instead, said HAPPY HOLIDAYS

after which YOU (lied....you cons....you LIE....) called me a few names
questioned my sanity
and said that NOBODY (except a few FRINGE groups....like FOX news and the 20 million member christian coalition) were trying to BAN all words other than "merry xmas"

and now...
you rip off your whiskers andcreveal the evil underneath!

you ADMIT that you are one of thosecfringe lunatics who gets REALLY FKN ANGRY any time a sane and rational person says "happy holidays" instead of "merry xmas I hate liberals"

christmas is, indeed, a national HOLIDAY

which is why those of us who do not celebrate the birth of a liberal middle eastern trouble maker say "happy HOLIDAYS"

I don't believe in god
I am an atheist
I DO believe in holidays

so
happy fkn holidays to you my deranged enemy


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Your evidence does not matter. All of those men considered themselves to be Christians, and their's are the only opinions that matter on that subject, unless you are claiming to speak for God. Psot all the links that you want on other people's opinions, they cannot refute those men's own words on the subject of their beliefs. They did not believe in the Christianity that is orthodox today, but they were Christians by their own words.

You are engaging in the exact same thing that Dominionists do, you are attempting to rewirte history to support your own agenda. If you want to prove them wrong you can not do so by engaging in deception yourself. 

You need to make a choice, are you going to stick to the truth and use it, or are you going to stick to lies and be made a fool of by everyone?

Fact: Almost all of the founding fathers considered themselves to be Christian.
Fact: They worked very hard to make sure that the United States would not be a Christian nation because they knew what would happen if it ever became one.

The United States is not a Christian nation, but it was founded by Christian men. Stick to the truth and you will be respected, even by those who disagree with you. Spout lies and you will be ignored, even by those who agree with you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I linked the Treaty of Tripoli which clearly states that American is NOT a Christian nation.  It is one of the first international claims by the newly formed US government.
> 
> If you think that's ignorant I'm sorry.  I haven't lied about this document.
> 
> ...



Try to think for a minute. It does not matter if you are right about one thing if you are wrong about the point I am making.

I have never said that the US is a Christian nation, I am challenging your contention that the founders were predominately Deists. They were not. Spouting any other facts you want to spout does not make you right in the area you are wrong. What  matters is not what other people believed or said about Washington, or anyone else, what matters is what they said. Why do you have a problem with that concept?

If I started claiming to everyone that you are a fundamentalist Christian, would that make you one?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's one way to win an argument.  Just ignore all evidence to the contrary.  Provide some links if you're going to call something a fact.  I have linked the words of the men themselves.

I concede that SOME, but not ALL or MOSt of the signers of the Constitution were Christian, but the Constitution is not a God or Christian document.

We have some posters here who claim America is a Christian nation and that the nation was founded on Christian principles.  Our nation was founded by men of reason.  I agree they had no intention of having the US be a Christian nation.

Now, tell that to the dominionists.

Our country was founded on reason.  Thank God for that.


----------



## Smartt33 (Jul 7, 2010)

hortysir said:


> WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> 
> Has someone said that we were?
> 
> Our founders had such a jaded view of Christianity, after being subjects of the Church of England, there is no reason why they would model this country after that standard.



Actually, the true Christians recognized the falsehood of the governmental religion. They knew what real Christianity was, and how it was meant to be lived. They also knew that the government was not meant to be run by the church, nor was the church meant to be run by the church.
They were not looking for a theocracy in America. When they came here they knew that the government needed to have high standards, and morals, and they knew that true Christianity offered that. It was upon these high standards and morals found in the scriptures that they founded this great nation. now that those standards have fallen by the wayside, America has also fallen by the wayside.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



What question is it you think I answered?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Abraham Lincoln -

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



It offends me that you secularists with your PC complaints are attempting to drum out the saying of Merry Christmas for fear of tripping over your sensitive atheistic toes....but if you want to say happy holidays go right ahead dumbshit....although from the vast number of your complaints i doubt you are very happy...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

The American revolutionaries were not just rebelling against the government and army of Britain, they were rebelling against the long-established Christian idea that governmental authority comes from God. In challenging King George III of Britain, they rejected the idea that God had given him a divine right to rule over them. 

Consequently, when it came time to frame the Constitution, the founders began with words that made it clear the former colonies were rejecting the idea that government was ordained by God.

American democracy starts with the presumption that the authority of the government comes not from God but from the consent of the governed, in other words, from "We the people."


----------



## Smartt33 (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



It is true that liberals would love to remove the verbage that Christians use from the public sector. They are working in that direction, and using atheists mostly to get there. It is mostly atheists who are filing cases against things that spook them. The rest of the liberals are welcoming these cases, and are pushing them. 

Yup, that is what is happening. Christians only complain when only one group is allowed, liberals are complaining whenever Christian presence is allowed. It is that simple. 

I know because I have been in those fights, and I have not backed down, and it seems that everyone loses when that happens. 

At this time, liberals are wrecking this great nation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Thomas Jefferson claimed he was a Christian, do you deny this? George Washington believed in the Bible, served as an officer of the church he attended, and received communion in the Episcopal church. If he was a Deists he was also a hypocrite. Benjamin Franklin was a deist who also believed that the teachings of Jesus were the best moral and religious system ever seen. 

Why are you trying to insist that all of the were Deists? Or even most of them? Does it hurt your brain to think that Christians are capable of rational thought?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

I would point out to you that the basis for our government is "We the People".  That means all of us no matter what our political views.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Apparently, you aren't reading my posts and links.  Show me your quote from Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



"Does it hurt your brain to think that Christians are capable of rational thought?"

some christians are.

many are not.

the more evangelical the christian the less capable of rational thought


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Abraham Lincoln -
> 
> "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."



That certainly proves that the Founders were not Christians.

 *That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true;  but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never  spoken with intentional disrepect of religion in general, or of any  denomination of Christians in particular.

**Certainly there is no contending against  the Will of God; but still  there is some difficulty in ascertaining, and applying it, to particular  cases.

*Both of those are also Lincoln quotes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The posts where you claimed that Washington was a Deist? The one where you claimed Jefferson was?

Apparently you just do not want to admit that Christians are capable of thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> "Does it hurt your brain to think that Christians are capable of rational thought?"
> 
> some christians are.
> 
> ...



Jesus was extremely evangelical, yet he could obviously think. You are generalizing, and that is indicative of lazy thought.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



I have no problems if someone wants to wish me a Merry Christmas...I'm not the one who goes on a screaming tirade about how they are trying to suppress my religion if someone has the NERVE to say Happy Holidays to me.   I'm not the one who waves "Merry Christmas" around like it's some kind of weapon.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Smartt33 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



You sound like a Tory...


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



speaking of Reds...


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Smartt33 said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



"It is true that liberals would love to remove the verbage that Christians use from the public sector."

certain phrases in particular;

like

America IS a CHRISTAN NATION
and
OUR LAWS come from the BIBLE!

liberals are more inclusive
and we believe that America is not JUST for christians

we also have a very healthy and rational fear of the bible being used as a source for laws


" They are working in that direction, and using atheists mostly to get there. It is mostly atheists who are filing cases against things that spook them. The rest of the liberals are welcoming these cases, and are pushing them. "

oh well
That's freedom
That's secular America

deranged hatefilled moronicons get to try and create a christian theocracy
while sane and rational people get to work against it



"Yup, that is what is happening. Christians only complain when only one group is allowed, liberals are complaining whenever Christian presence is allowed. It is that simple. "

to your simple little brain, no doubt

the REALITY is;

CONSERVATIVE christians complain when anyone tries to deny them complete control of the government

liberals merely work diligently to stop them



"I know because I have been in those fights, and I have not backed down, and it seems that everyone loses when that happens. "


well
if you defended the conservative christian perspective that THEY own this country and THEY have special rights then you were wrong

steadfastly wrong, no doubnt, but still wrong


and I shan't back down either

America is a SECULAR NATION

our laws come from reason and common sense, NOT the christan bible

THAT is the way it IS!

you lose


"At this time, liberals are wrecking this great nation."

only from your perspective

from the liberal perspective we are working to make it greater!


judging by how liberal the country REALLY Is
(women in the military institutes, gays out and about everywhere, states all over reconsidering outdated anit-marijuana laws, interracial romances, sex outside of marriage, divorce is easy to get....we even have a black president and could soon have a woman!  gosh...we truly are a liberal nation)


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > "Does it hurt your brain to think that Christians are capable of rational thought?"
> ...



1 evangelical christian capable of rational thought does NOT automatically disqualify the millions who are not.

to think that would be WORSE  than lazy thought

it would be outrageously stupid

should I type slower for you?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You claim that 4 founding  fathers that signed the constitution out of 39 were Deists and say that most of them were Diests?  How do you make the jump to say this is most?
I went through your links you provided and many of them were just providing evidence that the US was not founded as a Christian nation.  The fact still remains that most of the founding fathers were Christian, and because of this Christianity had a significant influence on the founding of the United States.

The one link you did provide took cherry-picked quotes from only 5 of the founding fathers.  Yes, Franklin on your list was a Diest, however, you cannot claim the others were just because of the cherry-picked quotes in the link you provided.  We should look at the full context of why they said those things and look to the other things they have said or written.  Like Jefferson, I think many of them saw through the hypocrisy of the established European Christian churches and wanted to return to the basic teachings of Christ.  You asked for a quote from Jefferson.  Here it is and it proves my point:



> I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.


Jefferson's Religious Beliefs - Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia

Here are some quotes from Franklin:



> Franklin, whose life almost spanned the eighteenth century, mutated from defining himself as a deist to saying that deism had perverted his friends. In his forties, Franklin commended the excellency of the Christian religion above all others ancient and modern. As a senior citizen at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he suggested in vain that the participants pray for Gods guidance. The longer I live, he said, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs the affairs of men.


Deism : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Would you like a list of all the Evangelical Christians who could easily type you into a corner?

The problem is not that Christians are incapable of thought, or even that many, if not most, do not think, it is that the ones who do think are largely ignored by both sides of the debate. It is a lot easier for one side to pretend, like you, that Christians are stupid and ignorant, and for the other side to resent science and education because they are dominated by people who hold them in contempt.

Why don't you take a look around at what thinking Christians are actually studying and saying before you jump to conclusions? After all, you want to claim you are better than them, so you should act like it. If you choose to be lazy you are certainly free to do so, but it will only win you points with other idiots, not with honest people.

Reconciling God and Science - TIME


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Christopher said:


> You claim that 4 founding  fathers that signed the constitution out of 39 were Deists and say that most of them were Diests?  How do you make the jump to say this is most?
> I went through your links you provided and many of them were just providing evidence that the US was not founded as a Christian nation.  The fact still remains that most of the founding fathers were Christian, and because of this Christianity had a significant influence on the founding of the United States.
> 
> The one link you did provide took cherry-picked quotes from only 5 of the founding fathers.  Yes, Franklin on your list was a Diest, however, you cannot claim the others were just because of the cherry-picked quotes in the link you provided.  We should look at the full context of why they said those things and look to the other things they have said or written.  Like Jefferson, I think many of them saw through the hypocrisy of the established European Christian churches and wanted to return to the basic teachings of Christ.  You asked for a quote from Jefferson.  Here it is and it proves my point:
> ...



No, I claim of the four founding fathers you said were Deists, three of them claimed otherwise, and the last does not meet your definition of a Deist. Please note that this puts the burden of proof on you, not me, because I have demonstrated that you are wrong about them from their own words and actions. Until you address the demonstrated fact that you are misinformed you cannot expect me, or anyone else, to accept your claim that most of the Founders were Deists, and not Christians.

The fact is that Jefferson claimed to be a Christian. The fact that he also believed that the Bible and the teachings of Christendom perverted the teachings of Jesus does not negate that claim, except in the minds of people who refuse to accept that any understanding of the Bible that their's is permissible. You have now proven yourself to be a religious fanatic who thinks that they have the sole right to interpret God's will and the Bible in order to define tho is, and is not, worthy of acceptance of God. Maybe you should join your soulmate Neubarth and condemn everyone who thinks for themselves to Hell.

You have earned my contempt.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



tch tch your anti-Christian slip is showing...


----------



## bruzz (Jul 7, 2010)

America was founded more on Freemason (Enlightenment) ideals than Christian ideals. The biggest reason people say America was founded on Christian principles is because many of the first pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth on the Mayflower were Puritans. However, that was the founding of the British colonies, not America.


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




and your ignorance and stupidity is showing

I have maintain
steadfastly
regularly

that I am NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN

I AM, however, ANTI-right wing evangelical christian

those are 2 different things

this seems to be a constant problem with very stupid people an dwith right wingers (I know I am being redundant)

try to understand the following (you moron)

a person can be opposed to RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS while, at the very same time, NOT being anti-ALL christians

there are plenty of christians who I have no problem with....

garrison keillor, for example

and I have no problem with LIBERAL christians and MODERATE christians.

I DO have a definite distate for HARD CORE EVANGELICAL christians who are actively working to
a. wage CULTURE WAR on everyone else
and
b. have THEIR religion declared the official religion of America and their laws made the law of the land



I know....
I'm wasting my time trying to explain to you the subtleties...

you are obviously TOO stupid to understand.....

(that must be why you are a conservative....
it has been my experience that the stupider the person
the smarter he thinks he is
and the more likely he/she is a conservative)


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Smartt33 said:
> ...



Deflecting from the topic to a totally different zip code?   Yeah...I suppose that's one option for those who have nothing to debate legitimately with...

Is that a Christian trait, or just yours?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

bruzz said:


> America was founded more on Freemason (Enlightenment) ideals than Christian ideals. The biggest reason people say America was founded on Christian principles is because many of the first pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth on the Mayflower were Puritans. However, that was the founding of the British colonies, not America.



Actually, the Pilgrims were not the Puritans...they were Separatists.  But their colony was later absorbed by the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay.  The Puritans were know for the witch trials, exiling Anne Hutchenson and Roger Williams and hanging Quakers.  They were a colony whose government was run by the Religious Authorities.


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Someone skipped on their medications again today? Let's double the Thorazine. You are hallucinating a bit.  Don't forget to check under your bed and in your closet.


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



here's a little known fact for ya

in the summer of 2001 (before 9/11)

I was watching pat robertson (tis  well to know what tunes the devil is playing)
and he said;

"we (evangelical christians) have MORE in common with evangelical muslims than we do with liberal or moderate christians"


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



How much of your life is based on Pat Robertson???? 

So who is still trying to package God, put him in a box for all to see??? Who has learned better???? Christianity is not about brand. It is about reconciliation, redemption, and salvation. What is political about that????


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



well

he controls a lot of tv  and radio statsiosn all over the country
(how many do you own or control?)

and he broadcasts his nonsense from them
(how much air time do you get?)

and during the bush years (all 8 years) his representatives met with bush every thursday, every week, for 8 years....(how often did you meet with bush?)

and he claims to have 20-30 million followers....(how many do you have?)

obviously, your question is just the type of taunting and ridicule I would expect from a monkey

what next....gonna throw your feces at me?

the hard core evangelical right wing christians in America are well organized
(despite your denial)
and they are working toplace THEIR people in judicial, legal,politcial and education positions all over the country (despite your denial)

you may scoff and ignore them (why not...they have no problem with you, nor do you have a problem with them....)
buit they are a farce to be recognized and watched


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



I am absolutely correct and history proves me out...any religion give state power will abuse that power in the most horrible of ways.   But feel free to divert from debating my comments and attacking me personally....just answer this...is it a Christian trait to go personal instead of sticking to debate?   OR is it just what you do?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Christianity is supposed to be about that...but very little about the structure of Christian organizations are really like that.  And if they were to get state power like the Catholic Church did in Spain, like the Puritan Church did in Massachusetts, like John Knox's form of Protestantism did in Scotland.....watch out anyone who doesn't toe their line.....just like what the Muslim fundamentalists get away with in some ME countries.


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



You might want to tone down son and take care of that diaper while your at it.  
I guess Psychotics come in all brands and flavors....huh. 

Still we are all better off living our own lives rather than spending our time harnessing others. Thank God for those principles that laid down the foundation of this great Nation. So great are those principles, that they are applied through persuasion and example, not force or decree. That was the whole point, just so you know. Don't let that interfere with your rant though. Teething is a bitch, I get it.


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Fighting Tyranny under any mask or disguise, is what it is. Pay attention, do what you can.  Action brings the players into consciousness. Bring specific grievance into light.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


What a lovely thought....what does it have to do with the Price of Turnips?


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Lighten up? You are assuming allot there. Maybe I'm trying to get a laugh out of you? 

Seriously, concerning fundamentalism, when it concerns the individual, internally, externally, that is between them and our maker. When anyone establishes law, here, it is supposed to be about reason, function, not dogma. When dogma interferes with reason, fairness, justice, there is a legal remedy. Fundamentalist's can be brought to light and understanding, just like the rest of us. They are not a mortal enemy. We are all going through the changes, as in on the path, but not there yet. that said, anyone comparing them literally to Jihadist's seems to have strayed pretty far from the path. I could have either taken offense at what you said or laughed about it. I chose to laugh about it.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



Bullshit.  Your argument is the usual, stupid blah, blah, blah.  Our laws and morals have always been based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Until 92, anyway.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 7, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Which God were they referring to in all of their writings ?




I believe it was the God of Abraham

"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests."  ~Andrew Jackson~


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



No they have not...in fact many of our laws, our bill of rights, our other amendments fly in the face of Judeo-Christian beliefs.


----------



## Intense (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sort of like you firing a 12 gauge into a crowd because somebody said something you didn't like. Takes care of one problem, but creates more than it solves. You want to tackle injustice, be surgical, it beats being blind folded. Collateral damage creates more than it solves. Stick to the truth, limit to the truth. There were allot of things going on in the world during the times of which you speak.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Pat Robertson has always been an idiot. He was trashed by Evangelical  Christians when he said this, something you would point out if you were  honest.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 7, 2010)

When did evangelical Christians denounce Pat Robertson.  I missed it.


----------



## rikules (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



much of what the christians woud enact as laws are
a. unconstitutional and
b. BAD, EVIL!

the 10 commandments, for example, are mostly unconstitutional

and christian laws like anti-homosexual or anti-wiccan are both unconstitutional AND bad.

I know that many of our deviously deceptive conservative friends on this board INSIST that
a. evangelical christians don't exist and
b. they would NEVER EVER criminalize wiccans or homosexuals or atheists..

but
they either lie to themselves
or just lie to us
or both

I have no doubt that should people like GLENN BECK and BILL OREILLY ever achieve enough influence to help get evangelical christians elected to enough political and judicial 
positions the round-up of homosexuals, wiccans, atheists, (liberals? feminists? democrats?)
woud be item number 2 on the agenda...

rounding up "the abortionists" and the women who have had abortions would be item number 1

and then
as hero-to-conservaytives newt gingrich said....
"we must change the laws of the land to reflect our christian religious beliefs and then see to it that they can NEVER be changed again"

talk about tyrannical theocracy

ok cons

time for you to tell us how we are paranoid and that right wing evangelicals don't actually exist....

cons......
so deranged....

right wing evangelical are EVERYWHERE (on tv, in the media, on the radio)
and cons INSIST they don't exist!

meanwhile

there is NO evidence of a god....
but god they believe in.....!

I thank the gods that I don't believe in that I am NOT a loony tune conservative


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2010)

How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
They, as good Christians had a positive influence on all of American society.
However, they all agreed that their religion had no influence and place in government.
There, we have it.  Every one  knows that is fact.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> When did evangelical Christians denounce Pat Robertson.  I missed it.



How much time do you spend talking to Christians and reading what they say? Not everything said about him makes it into the MSM.

My Two Words for Pat Robertson: Shut Up!  Pastor Chris Owens &#8211; - Musings, Rants, and Reflections

Besides, you agree with Pat about  Rush and Obama, so why are you so hard on him?

Pat Robertson Denounces Rush Limbaugh For Hoping Obama Fails


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 7, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> When did evangelical Christians denounce Pat Robertson.  I missed it.



Why on earth does it matter?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> They, as good Christians had a positive influence on all of American society.
> However, they all agreed that their religion had no influence and place in government.
> There, we have it.  Every one  knows that is fact.



Actually, not everyone does know that is fact because it's not. They wanted government to have no effect on religion, not vice versa.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> ...



After what the Founders ran from in Europe, are you claiming that they wanted religion to have influence in our new government?
You are shitting us, right? I thought so. Good joke. 
Well, I am trying to understand your satire so I will follow along and laugh.
The Founders wanting our new government to be influenced by religon yet offering NOTHING anywhere to support that conclusion. Nothing in Constitution or ANY law anywhere. 
Very funny.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> ...



BS...I'm not even a Yank and even I know they didn't want religious influence on the govt. And even if they DIDN'T say that then, who gives a shit. It matters now....


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 7, 2010)

Truce?  Dream on ...they'd rather die than agree to any part of Christianity in our nation's conception.  What is so odd is that we all seem to agree that Christianity was intentionally left out of our government for reasons that we have extensively discussed...to death actually.  And it seems like we all have the same idea that God, Jesus and the holy grail were purposefully left out of the constitution to protect religious freedom or the freedom to ignore religion altogether if that's your choosing.  Where we seem to be locked up is on the fact that these men were indeed, by self proclamation, Christian in their faith.  So while the grand ol' America may not have been born out of Christianity...there would appear,  from all the links provided here that support the notion, that Christianity and the acknowledgment of Christ as the Son of God, did indeed guide these men in their endeavor to form a more perfect union as ONE NATION....UNDER GOD


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Another interesting post...still not seeing your point here...obtuse on purpose?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Really?   Who trashed him?   I was on another message board where many many people said he was spot on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Truce?  Dream on ...they'd rather die than agree to any part of Christianity in our nation's conception.  What is so odd is that we all seem to agree that Christianity was intentionally left out of our government for reasons that we have extensively discussed...to death actually.  And it seems like we all have the same idea that God, Jesus and the holy grail were purposefully left out of the constitution to protect religious freedom or the freedom to ignore religion altogether if that's your choosing.  Where we seem to be locked up is on the fact that these men were indeed, by self proclamation, Christian in their faith.  So while the grand ol' America may not have been born out of Christianity...there would appear,  from all the links provided here that support the notion, that Christianity and the acknowledgment of Christ as the Son of God, did indeed guide these men in their endeavor to form a more perfect union as ONE NATION....UNDER GOD



Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you Tex. I like reading your posts but I believe you need to take a good long look and study your argument. Tex, religion has no place in government. Sincerely, I believe YOU KNOW that yet are in denial due to your religous beliefs. Tex, think hard. Your religous beliefs are stronger than your political beliefs. I think the same way. They have no place in government. That is the law and the Founders laid it.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> They, as good Christians had a positive influence on all of American society.
> However, they all agreed that their religion had no influence and place in government.
> There, we have it.  Every one  knows that is fact.



Truth....they knew that religion had no business in government...they'd see that disaster.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 7, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > When did evangelical Christians denounce Pat Robertson.  I missed it.
> ...



It matters just as much as when the world's muslims don't condemn Al Q...enough, I guess.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > You claim that 4 founding  fathers that signed the constitution out of 39 were Deists and say that most of them were Diests?  How do you make the jump to say this is most?
> ...



Please re-read my post.  It was in response to SkyDancer. I actually agree with your position.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 7, 2010)

rikules said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Answer this...

Whose opinion should we listen to in order to make the laws (within the Constitutional framework of course) in this country....?

An Atheist's opinion?
An Agnostic's opinion?
An Anglican's opinion?
A Baptist's opinion?
Catholic's opinion?
Confucian's opinion?
Deist's opinion?
Evangelical's opinion?
and so forth...you get the idea...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 7, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Evangelical Christians don't denouce Robertson because he's doing nothing to hurt people, he's not calling for anybody's death, he isn't funding the killing of innocents or recruiting innocents to kill themselves in the commission of murder,  and he doesn't violate human rights.

Pretty simple.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Apologies. I was responding to SkyDancer so often I missed who was posting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Are you trying to say that some of those opinions are invalid? What if the atheist is a construction worker who thinks that blacks are subhuman, and the Evangelical Christian is a renowned Constitutional scholar who believes that Universal health Care is a God given duty imposed on the government?


----------



## Father Time (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



I think you don't know what the word 'ban' actually means. Complaining to an organization doesn't force them to do anything it's just exercising free speech rights. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> The ACLU is a secular organization which is spearheading much of the anti-Christian shennanigans....are you aware of this?



Oh not this crap again

The ACLU Fights for Christians

Your link lists as a source the ACLU's policy guide but that's not open to the public so I'm suspicious of them. I can't even check if their list is accurate because their source is either a document not open to the public or is something from 1988 (and if it is then it sure as hell doesn't prove they do it recently).


----------



## bodecea (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Perhaps you are not clear on the FACT that there is to be NO religious test in serving this country politically or law making etc.   You seem to disagree with the Constitution on that.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Ah...interesting in a hypocritical way.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Once again
you are completely wrong



to put you in your place (though I have no doubt that you will just close your eyes, your mind and DNEY DENY DENY.....)


you (stupidly, not knowing anything at all about what you were talking about...) vomitted;


"Evangelical Christians don't denouce Robertson because he's doing nothing to hurt people, he's not calling for anybody's death, he isn't funding the killing of innocents or recruiting innocents to kill themselves in the commission of murder, and he doesn't violate human rights."


here's a little bit of all of those things for you to ignore;




pat robertson quotes;

summer 2001 "we have more in common with islamic fundamentalists than we do with liberal or even moderate christians"


How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 227



9. "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson


7. "(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson



I read your book. When you get through, you [a reader] say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up." I mean, is it as bad as you say?
-- Pat Robertson, to syndicated columnist Joel Mowbray, author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers National Security; the US Department of State is located in Foggy Bottom, a Washington, DC, neighborhood; "Foggy Bottom" is sometimes used as a synonym for Washington, DC, quoted from AANEWS (October, 2003)






2. "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez



I have a zero tolerance for sanctimonious morons who try to scare people. 
Pat Robertson 



It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-biased media and the homosexuals who want to destroy all Christians. 
Pat Robertson 

Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together. 
Pat Robertson 


6. "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." Pat Robertson



We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA
-- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991



We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29


If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious.
-- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992


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


Only Christians and Jews in Government

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office


I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that.
-- Pat Robertson, Time magazine, after having been confronted regarding his statement on The 700 Club of January 11, 1985


When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218


===================
Immunity from Prosecution: 'God Told Me to Do It'

Gerard Thomas Straub
Writer and TV Executive, former The 700 Club producer

"Here is another example of the way Robertson would mix church and state, rather than keep them separate. Let's say that a Christian thinks God is directing him or her to blow up an abortion clinic or kill a doctor who performs abortions, and this Christian does in fact commit such a crime. In a September of 1984 edition of The 700 Club, Robertson suggested that special church tribunals could be called upon to discern if a believer had in fact received an authentic word from God which compelled him to break a civil law. According to Robertson, if this church tribunal did determine the believer had in fact received an authentic message from God -- how they could reach this conclusion without issuing God a suboena wasn't made clear -- then, Robertson said, the church tribunal would have the civil authority to provide the believer with immunity from prosecution."
-- Gerard Thomas Straub, speech before the San Fernando Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, September 11, 1995, quoted from Harry Schwartzbart, "Pat Robertson Proposes Immunity From Prosecution For Criminals Who Commit Crimes On Instructions From God"


============================


Biblical Slaughter of Midianites Justified

      Load This File and Section with Frames Index

Audience Participant: "I've been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?"

Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God.

God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love -- and that was a loving thing -- took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.

===========================

The Stoning of -- UFO Enthusiasts!?

The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, but the heavens belong to the Lord. He has given us the Earth. He also warned, way back when Moses was writing down not only what is the Ten Commandments, but Deuteronomy, which is almost the Second Law.

Here is what he said to the children of Israel about this whole matter:

"If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or moon or any of the hosts of heaven which I have not commanded you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, NKJV)

Now, that's what Moses said to the children of Israel about those who worship the sun and the moon and the hosts of heaven, because these things, at best, are lifeless nothings, or, if they are intelligent, they're demonic. And, yes, there is a host of heaven. There are angels and there are fallen angels. There is no question about it.

Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, funny-looking creature? Of course he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive people. And if they can lead somebody away from the true God, or away from Jesus Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't matter, you will lose your salvation. It doesn't matter how they get you. The question is, did they get you, and under what guise?

This is man in rebellion against God, who refuses to take God's Law. And God says, "My covenant says you won't do this. And if I find anybody in Israel," -- which is his pure nation -- "If I find anybody in Israel that's doing this sort of thing, then I want you to take him out and dispose of him."

It's a clear violation of God's word.
-- Pat Robertson, excerpted verbatim from "Robertson Advocates Stoning for UFO Enthusiasts" by Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer Magazine

============================


basically

what it all boils down to is;

robertson accuses liberals (and atheists, homosexuals, feminists, etc)
of doing the DEVILS WORK
and trying to DESTROY christianity and America (you believe this, too,)

consequently

since liberals are so EVIL
and since he JUSTIFIES MURDER of gods enemies
then, ipso facto, he is basically stating "it is OUR CHRISTIAN DUTY to KILL LIBERALS....."

AND he wants HIS people to be ALLOWED to commit murder without consequences!

you are just too brainwashed AND stupid to see it....


of course...
there is always the possibility that you agree with robertson....


do you?

do you think that liberals are SO evil that killing them is justified?


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




we should seek the opinions of ALL people
without knowing their religion or lack thereof

then
regardless of their religion
if they have a good opinion or a good idea we shouldn't JUST ignore it because they happen to be atheist (or christian)


however
since you asked this question a certain way I will add the following;

though I would NOT just disqualify a persons opinion because he was a christian
I would MOST LIKELY disqualify a persons opinion if his opinions were extremely evangelical

lastly;
there are MILLIONS of christians who, after years of BAD PRESS about atheists (thanks to people like glenn beck and bill oreilly and pat robertson) would NEVER VOTE for an atheist REGARDLESS of how good a choice he was

would NEVER seek the opinion of an atheist regardless of how smart and wise he was

SIMPLY because they have been brainwashed into fearing atheists


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Truce?  Dream on ...they'd rather die than agree to any part of Christianity in our nation's conception.  What is so odd is that we all seem to agree that Christianity was intentionally left out of our government for reasons that we have extensively discussed...to death actually.  And it seems like we all have the same idea that God, Jesus and the holy grail were purposefully left out of the constitution to protect religious freedom or the freedom to ignore religion altogether if that's your choosing.  Where we seem to be locked up is on the fact that these men were indeed, by self proclamation, Christian in their faith.  So while the grand ol' America may not have been born out of Christianity...there would appear,  from all the links provided here that support the notion, that Christianity and the acknowledgment of Christ as the Son of God, did indeed guide these men in their endeavor to form a more perfect union as ONE NATION....UNDER GOD



i'm sure you kow that "one nation...under god"  was inappropriately added to teh pledge of allegiance in the 1950s

the original pledge
written in the late 1800s
did not mention god at all

and, i'm sure you understand that a pledge of Americans (religious and non-religious) should be ALL inclusive...

I'm perfectly willing, as an atheist, to swear allegiance to America
I am NOT willing to swear allegiance to any god

a pledge of allegiance
to ANY nation
should be a pledge for ALL people in that nation to THAT nation, only.

and no ONE GROUP of people (in this case, christians) should be demanding that THEIR GOD be included in that pledge

i never recite "under god" when I say the pledge
and I PURPOSELY recite "INDIVISIBLE" as LOUDLY as I can.....


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> They, as good Christians had a positive influence on all of American society.
> However, they all agreed that their religion had no influence and place in government.
> There, we have it.  Every one  knows that is fact.



Dogma has no place in Government. Principle does.


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> ...



They did have concern over the battle of the sects.


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Blame it on the heat wave.


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



What matters is recognizing when anyone crosses the line. Welcome to the real world where people matter, flaws and all. It's either that or playing "Last Man Standing". Robertson is no more or less than anyone else in his witness. It is up to the individual to discern. His witness is his witness. The burden he creates, between him and God, just like you and I.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 8, 2010)

The new Government has my best Wishes and most fervent Prayers, for its Success and Prosperity: but whether I shall have any Thing more to do with it, besides praying for it, depends on the future suffrages of Freemen. 
Letter to Thomas Jefferson (2 January 1789)

Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right. 
Letter to Edmund Jenings (1782), 

I am surprised at the suddenness as well as the greatness of this revolution... It is the will of Heaven that the two countries should be sundered forever. It may be the will of Heaven that America shall suffer calamities still more wasting, and distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the case it will have this good effect at least. It will inspire us with many virtues which we have not, and correct many errors, follies, and vices which threaten to disturb, dishonor, and destroy us. The furnace of affliction produces refinement in states as well as individuals. And the new Governments we are assuming in every part will require a purification from our vices, and an augmentation of our virtues, or they will be no blessings. The people will have unbounded power, and the people are extremely addicted to corruption and venality, as well as the great. But I must submit all my hopes and fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the faith may be, I firmly believe. 
Letter to Abigail Adams (3 July 1776)

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore. 
Letter to Abigail Adams (3 July 1776)

I have thought proper to recommend, and I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach' to any people;" that He would turn us from our transgressions and turn His displeasure from us; that He would withhold us from unreasonable discontent, from disunion, faction, sedition, and insurrection; that He would preserve our country from the desolating sword; that He would save our cities and towns from a repetition of those awful pestilential visitations under which they have lately suffered so severely, and that the health of our inhabitants generally may be precious in His sight; that He would favor us with fruitful seasons and so bless the labors of the husbandman as that there may be food in abundance for man and beast; that He would prosper our commerce, manufactures, and fisheries, and give success to the people in all their lawful industry and enterprise; that He would smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion; that He would bless all magistrates, from the highest to the lowest, give them the true spirit of their station, make them a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well; that He would preside over the councils of the nation at this critical period, enlighten them to a just discernment of the public interest, and save them from mistake, division, and discord; that He would make succeed our preparations for defense and bless our armaments by land and by sea; that He would put an end to the effusion of human blood and the accumulation of human misery among the contending nations of the earth by disposing them to justice, to equity, to benevolence, and to peace; and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world. 
John Adams Presidential proclamation of a national day of fasting and prayer (6 March 1789)

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes to all of the above. Just limit the branding and rule out the dogma.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2010)

Intense said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How about a truce? The United States was founded by people that were Christians. Good Christians.
> ...



Muslim principle?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The new Government has my best Wishes and most fervent Prayers, for its Success and Prosperity: but whether I shall have any Thing more to do with it, besides praying for it, depends on the future suffrages of Freemen.
> Letter to Thomas Jefferson (2 January 1789)
> 
> Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right.
> ...



Name one politician that doesn't do the same in the history of this country.
Where is any of that in the LAW?
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their religions.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 8, 2010)

Well, if the posters here would stop misrepresenting and twisting the facts about our founding fathers and what the first amendment stands for we probably would not have an argument here....

Jefferson liked this proposal for our Nation's Seal so much that he took it for his own, when it was not used for our Nation.



> In the story of America's Great Seal, a particularly relevant chapter is the imagery suggested by Benjamin Franklin in August 1776. He chose the dramatic scene described in Exodus, where people confronted a tyrant in order to gain their freedom.
> 
> "Pharaoh sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his head and a Sword in his hand, passing through the divided Waters of the Red Sea in Pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Cloud, expressive of the divine Presence and Command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the Sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh."
> 
> ...


Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God - Ben Franklin's Motto for America


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Well, if the posters here would stop misrepresenting and twisting the facts about our founding fathers and what the first amendment stands for we probably would not have an argument here....
> 
> Jefferson liked this proposal for our Nation's Seal so much that he took it for his own, when it was not used for our Nation.
> 
> ...



None the less, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Christians.  An important distinction.  They took great care to craft governing documents based on reason, not religion.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if the posters here would stop misrepresenting and twisting the facts about our founding fathers and what the first amendment stands for we probably would not have an argument here....
> ...



No, Jefferson was a Christian by his own admission.  Yes, Franklin was a Deist, although he questioned his Deist beliefs later in life.  See my reply to you earlier (post #415).


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No worries.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

The point is the Founders took care to assert it is "We the people" who govern, not God.  They purposely left God out of the Constitution.

This is NOT a Christian nation.  It is wrong to say America was founded on Christian principles.   The Dominionists want everyone to go there because they seek a Christian theocracy.

Some Christian groups want a theocracy.  They want the US to declare itself a Christian nation and they may let the rest of us practice our spiritual paths as long as we know our places.

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." 

(From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press)

 Many conservative Christians at large advocate theocratic principles in a quest to conquer America, convinced that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and (now) needs to return to her "Christian heritage." Pseudo-historian David Barton, through his Wall Builders organization, has perhaps done the most to propagate the myth of America founded as a Christian nation. The theocratic movement is based on historical falsehoods (for example, the erroneous claim that most of America's founding fathers were Christians) and a belief that Old Testament laws should apply to America governance. 
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 8, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > The new Government has my best Wishes and most fervent Prayers, for its Success and Prosperity: but whether I shall have any Thing more to do with it, besides praying for it, depends on the future suffrages of Freemen.
> ...



The Original Post claims that Jefferson, and 3 other founding fathers, did not use judaeo-christian principles in the founding of this country and went on to say they weren't "christian".   This was my response showing how jefferson actually was fairly religious and had faith in providence.

Also check out Care4All's link about the seal...more contradicting evidence for the claim of the original poster.

You can clearly see in these men's writings and our founding documents that they beleived in a greater power and they believed that a faith in a greater power was necessary to the success of this country.  They also tried to make sure NO religion would be discriminated against or dissalowwed in public or private.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The point is the Founders took care to assert it is "We the people" who govern, not God.  They purposely left God out of the Constitution.
> 
> This is NOT a Christian nation.  It is wrong to say America was founded on Christian principles.   The Dominionists want everyone to go there because they seek a Christian theocracy.
> 
> Some Christian groups want a theocracy.  They want the US to declare itself a Christian nation and they may let the rest of us practice our spiritual paths as long as we know our places.



You have stated these points several times and I have not seen many disagree with you.  At the same time you are not addressing the fact you were wrong about which founders were Christians and which were Deists.  Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not you that asserted that most of those who signed the Constitution were not Christian?

What is wrong is to say that Christian principles had little or no influence on the founding of America.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The point is the Founders took care to assert it is "We the people" who govern, not God.  They purposely left God out of the Constitution.
> ...



What is wrong, is to state that the US was founded on *Christian *principles when it clearly was not.

God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution.  Nowhere is Jesus mentioned.

I'm taking care about this because there are dominionists who seek to make America a Christian theocracy by rewriting American history.

First and foremost the founders took care to not have a Christian nation because of King George.  They did not want leaders who assumed the divine right of kings.  (One could argue that Bush expanded Presidential powers so much that we almost had King George W Bush)  Some of the domionists saw Bush as the first of their leaders.

The founders were a mixed bag.  Some were Unitarian, some were deists and some were Christians.  That doesn't mean that America was founded on Christian principles.

You have to rewrite history to go there.  Actually, they are busy in Texas doing that very thing.

Our laws of laws of men, and reason.  They are a result of the Enlightenment.  The founders took great care to not have religion overrun the country.

I think we honor them when we take care to guard our liberties carefully from those who seek to make the US a Christian theocracy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > The new Government has my best Wishes and most fervent Prayers, for its Success and Prosperity: but whether I shall have any Thing more to do with it, besides praying for it, depends on the future suffrages of Freemen.
> ...



And those laws are based upon Christian values and tenets. Our lawmakers swear on BIBLES to uphold the law, to tell the truth, to support the Constitution.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I agree on most of what you are saying here, you seem to be repeating again.  Do you always have difficulty answering a simple yes or no question?  That was rhetorical by the way, no need to answer.

Here is another try at two yes or no questions.  I am asking these honestly, because I think they get at the root of our disagreement:

Are you saying that the most of the founders were not Christian?
Are you saying that Christian principles had little or no influence on the founding of America?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

You won't get a yes or no from Sky. That would require some sort of committment on her part.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



No.  I''m saying that not all the founders were Christian, some were Deists, some were Unitarian and that American governement is not founded on Christian principles but on the will of the people and reason.  

Christ and God are not mentioned in the Constitution.  The founders took great care that we not have divine right of kings--we rebelled against King George.  The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that we are NOT a Christian nation.  Dominionist Christian are not happy with the truth and they want to re-write history and remake America into a Christian nation.  I oppose that.

One of the American values I hold most dear is religious freedom.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Well, we agree that not all the founders were Christian.  I submit, based upon all the writings and statements we have from the founders, that MOST of them were Christian.  You have yet to provide anything that would dispute that.

Again, are you saying that Christian principles had little or no influence on the founding of America?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Good. It's also a Christian value.

And nobody wants to turn America into a Christian nation. It's always been a Christian nation. What we want to do is prevent jackasses from stifling religious freedom by egregiously claiming that we aren't allowed to refer to God or to follow our religious principles if we happen to be involved in politics. That is by definition OPPRESSIVE and violates the principle of religious freedom.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



If they worshipped the Spaghetti Monster how would that have changed or made a difference in anything? 
We are a nation of laws, not men and their religions. The Constitution is concrete evidence of that.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> we should seek the opinions of ALL people
> without knowing their religion or lack thereof


a good start....
but that's kind of short-sighted isn't it? a man's religion informs you alot about the man...



			
				rikules said:
			
		

> then
> regardless of their religion
> if they have a good opinion or a good idea we shouldn't JUST ignore it because they happen to be atheist (or christian)


that is a very subjective statement...who decides if it a "good" opinion or not?
who is the "we" you are referring to?  you are just one man/one vote in this country



			
				rikules said:
			
		

> however
> since you asked this question a certain way I will add the following;


here it comes...



			
				rikules said:
			
		

> though I would NOT just disqualify a persons opinion because he was a christian
> I would MOST LIKELY disqualify a persons opinion if his opinions were extremely evangelical


you were doing pretty good til now but this is just the kind of answer i expected from you....what makes you think you can "DISQUALIFY" a person's opinion...?  even if they are the scary evagelicals that you hate so much.....?   they have the right to free speech and free expression of their religion just as much as anybody else has....and they can influence the laws of this country just as much as anybody else if they can get the votes.....we are a country based on laws that are made by people who VOTE.....one man one vote.....and each is entitled to his OWN opinion no matter how much you dislike it....now i know you are going to backpeddle and get mushy about the word "disqualify" like a typical librul but there are lefties in this Administration that libruls like you have put in office who are of the same kind of mindset and they are actually seeking to "disqualify" (in roundabout ways) things like talk radio in order to shut them up...because they do not like what they say.....libruls even consider cons on the radio to be spewing "hate speech".....another librul euphenism that means you are "disqualified" to speak because we don't like what you say...



			
				rikules said:
			
		

> lastly;
> there are MILLIONS of christians who, after years of BAD PRESS about atheists (thanks to people like glenn beck and bill oreilly and pat robertson) would NEVER VOTE for an atheist REGARDLESS of how good a choice he was
> 
> would NEVER seek the opinion of an atheist regardless of how smart and wise he was
> ...


and that is their constitutional right...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Maybe we would eat more pasta?
Seriously, I think our country would be much different today; that is if it would have even been formed in the first place.  Here are some good books which provide plenty of food for thought about how Christianity influenced our founding:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Origins-American-Constitutionalism-Donald-Lutz/dp/0807115061/ref=pd_sim_b_1]Amazon.com: The Origins of American Constitutionalism (9780807115060): Donald S. Lutz: Books[/ame]


> In The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Donald S. Lutz challenges the prevailing notion that the United States Constitution was either essentially inherited from the British or simply invented by the Federalists in the summer of 1787. His political theory of constitutionalism acknowledges the contributions of the British and the Federalists. Lutz also asserts, however, that the U.S. Constitution derives in form and content from a tradition of American colonial charters and documents of political foundation that began a century and a half prior to 1787. Lutz builds his argument around a close textual analysis of such documents as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Rhode Island Charter of 1663, the first state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. *He shows that American constitutionalism developed to a considerable degree from radical Protestant interpretations of the Judeo-Christian tradition that were first secularized into political compacts and then incorporated into constitutions and bills of rights.* Over time, appropriations that enriched this tradition included aspects of English common law and English Whig theory. Lutz also looks at the influence of Montesquieu, Locke, Blackstone, and Hume. In addition, he details the importance of Americans' experiences and history to the political theory that produced the Constitution. By placing the Constitution within this broader constitutional system, Lutz demonstrates that the document is the culmination of a long process and must be understood within this context. His argument also offers a fresh view of current controversies over the Framers' intentions, the place of religion in American politics, and citizens' continuing role in the development of the constitutional tradition.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Constitution-Faith-Founding-Fathers/dp/0801052319]Amazon.com: Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (9780801052316): John Eidsmoe: Books[/ame]


> John Eidsmoe rights the faulty historical record and correctly brings us back to the roots that made America great . . . *clearly demonstrates that our constitutional liberties are a direct result of our founders' moral and religious convictions* which were based on a belief in a God who created heaven and earth as well as on the fixed and unchanging absolutes of God's Word. Robert Skolrood, National Legal Foundation Legally accurate yet easy to understand . . . presents the truth about our founding fathers and their strong Christian roots that is missing from most textbooks and reference books written during the last fifty years. Every student of American history, ministers, and public speakers should read this book. . . . Tim LaHaye, Family Life Seminars Combines an interesting presentation with fine scholarship and a critical m message . . . should be read by anyone interested in the Constitution or Christianity. Wendell Bird, constitutional attorney Knowledge of our Christian heritage is an important weapon in the current fight for religious freedom in America. Eidsmoe has given us an entire arsenal of new and important evidence substantiating the Christian roots of our government. Mike Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association Balanced and lucid . . . *clearly documents the pervasive Christian influence on the lives and thought of those who wrote our Constitution*. I recommend it highly as a corrective to the almost totally secular portrayal of the Constitution found in so many textbooks today. Paul Vitz, author John Eidsmoe holds five degrees in law, theology, and political science. He currently serves as professor of constitutional law and related subjects at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University, Montgomery, Alabama, where he received the Outstanding Professor Award in 1993. A constitutional attorney and lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, he has also taught church history and other subjects in various seminaries and has produced a twelve-part video series titled The Institute on the Constitution. His other books include The Christian Legal Advisor, God and Caesar, and Columbus and Cortez.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:
			
		

> No.  I''m saying that not all the founders were Christian, some were Deists, some were Unitarian and that American governement is not founded on Christian principles but on the will of the people and reason.
> 
> Christ and God are not mentioned in the Constitution.  The founders took great care that we not have divine right of kings--we rebelled against King George.  The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that we are NOT a Christian nation.  Dominionist Christian are not happy with the truth and they want to re-write history and remake America into a Christian nation.  I oppose that.
> 
> One of the American values I hold most dear is religious freedom.



The VAST (i'd venture 99%) majority of founders were Chrisitan....mainly Protestants....
A very few were Deists...
Even those who drew from the Age of Reason believed in God...(listen up Secularists)

One can rightly say we are a Christian nation...because most of us are Christians and we make up this nation...
One CANNOT rightly say we have a Christian government...it's a secular government...influenced by Christianity...and other beliefs...

Religious freedom means we must tolerate those Dominionists and those Evangelicals and those Islamists....
They have the _religious freedom _to practice their religions just as much as everybody else as long as they do not usurp the law...


----------



## Care4all (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if the posters here would stop misrepresenting and twisting the facts about our founding fathers and what the first amendment stands for we probably would not have an argument here....
> ...



Was Deist even termed a word back then Sky?  they were part of a movement called the enlightenment, they were Free Masons.

Did they tell the public that they were something called Deists?  NO, they DID NOT.  they called themselves Christians, and the Unitarian Church(who considered themselves followers of Christ even though they did not believe in the Triune God only the one God) was what followed from what I have read?

Our constitution has parts that are modeled after free masonry's constitution....free Masons were made up of Christians, the first Unitarians/ (what you call Deists) at the time.....One had to believe in God to be a Free Mason.

Our founding Fathers believed that GOVERNMENT should not interfere with ones own personal choices in Religion....and that ones personal choice of Religions should be allowed in the PUBLIC SQUARE, and that GVT should have absolutely NO POWER to stop this from happening or legislating to control this in any manner.

The above, IS WHAT the First Amendment is ALL about....it was NOT about RIDDING ones personal choice in religious worship or lack thereof, FROM the Public Square, but to put it IN THE public square with no interference from the Government for ones personal choice of religion or worship or their free speech of such.

It is an absolute fabrication to state otherwise imo.

care


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Yes.  That is exactly what I'm saying.  The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not Christian documents.  We, the People rule, not God.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Deist was a term used back then.  Benjamin Franklin used it.  God is not in the Constitution.  Christ is mentioned nowhere.  

I agree with you about religious freedom being a principle in the first amendment.  That is NOT a Christian concept.  Here is a source about Deism; Deism is a belief in God through reason and nature.  The Founding Fathers convictions to draft the Consitution spring from deism, not the Bible.
The reliance on reason that Deism demands enabled those who used it at the time of the American Revolution to overcome the Biblical prohibition against rebellion in political and governmental matters. This prohibition is found in Romans 13:1-2 which reads, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

One of those who employed Deistic principles was Benjamin Franklin. As a young man in Philadelphia he read some Christian books that were written in opposition to Deism. Franklin wrote in his autobiography: "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm

BTW I'm taking real care here because there is a threat to liberty from the Dominionists.  They are a dangerous movement toward a Christian theocracy, they rewrite history and they are the farthest thing from what the Founders intended.

If Dominionists succeed my religious freedom goes out the window.  Perhaps that doesn't concern you because you're a Christian too.  I thought Christ said to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars.  The American government does not owe its existence to Christianity.


----------



## bruzz (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> One can rightly say we are a Christian nation...because most of us are Christians and we make up this nation...



How many of these christians would you say attend church and if they do, do you feel they are just going through the motions? How about christians who are living according the teaching of Jesus? 

There are very few real christians in the world.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Why did they go to Church?

Sky, the fear of us becoming a theocracy is lunacy imho....you are NO CLOSER to this happening at any time in History of our country....we have a constitution that will ALWAYS keep this from happening, and in addition to this, you have fewer Christians than in any time of our History....we have millions of Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, Hebrew, Wicca, and Atheists.  We are a Secular Nation, where one can choose your religion or lack thereof and THIS WILL NOT CHANGE....

so, stop this theocracy PHOBIA Madness....it is just your group of religious thinkers that is trying to unite you in "an enemy", so to give them more power....they get power from your fear....is what I think is going on with you...???

to go through your life in FEAR of such, makes you weak in mind and in body.  You should release yourself of such fear, you will be more spiritually whole, without it....from one friend to another.

Care


----------



## bruzz (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Wrong. Are you aware of The Family? The Dominion movement? These groups have installed "in god we trust" on our money and "one nation under god" in our Pledge of a Allegience, yet i can assure you they have little in common with the Founding Fathers version of God. Their version of god is power, which is quite similar to the early christian church, and we all know how many wars were started in the name of religion and how tolerant they were of other religions in their 'our religion is the correct religion' mentality.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





At least read about dominionism, Care before calling me a lunatic.  I'm not pioaranoid.  Dominionism starts by claiming the Founders were all Christians and the country was founded on the Bible.  It wasn't.

We are a secular nation.  God is not mentioned in the Constitution for a good reason.  Let's keep it that way.

Yes, I grant you that some of the Founders went to Church.  They favored favored a belief in God measured by nature and reason.  Not a biblical concept of God.

As to my concerns with the Christian right and dominionist in particular.  Pay attention.  They own the GOP.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

bruzz said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > One can rightly say we are a Christian nation...because most of us are Christians and we make up this nation...
> ...



Not sure how you define "real" christian...but i'd say our founding fathers were "real" chrisitans...

Not so many going to church these days....one of the reasons our country is having so many problems.....the lack of morality is fraying society...

However a bright spot....it does seem that there is a resurgence of religion as this country is becoming more polarized between the Christians and the Secularists...


----------



## bruzz (Jul 8, 2010)

At this point we need to define god, as god can have many definitions. I will throw my definitions out there, but do not claim them to be correct.

Definitions of god:
Founding fathers: God= reason.
Christians/religion: God = a higher power, something unexplainable, the head of their church.
Modern fundamentalist groups: God = power.

Please feel free to change or critique this list.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Dominionism is a tendency among Protestant Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists that encourages them to not only be active political participants in civic society, but also seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God. 

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version). 

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).


The *vast majority *of Christians read this text and conclude that God has appointed them stewards and caretakers of Earth. As Sara Diamond explains, however, *some *Christian read the text and believe, "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns." That, in a nutshell, is the idea of "dominionism." 
Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

Think Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.  Think Christian Coalition.  Coral Ridge Ministeries.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



So....the christian dominionists own the GOP....much like the secular commies own the Dems...?


----------



## bruzz (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



What you fail to recognize is how much more fundamental and politically powerful christianity is today. 100 years ago, churches were small and rural. Churches nowadays are closer to corporations. Look at new life "church". Churches and their members have become much more radical in their beliefs. This isn't your grandfathers church.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

bruzz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State

Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, &#8220;In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, &#8220;How to Participate in a Political Party.&#8221; It read:

&#8220;Rule the world for God.

&#8220;Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

&#8220;Hide your strength.

&#8220;Don&#8217;t flaunt your Christianity.

&#8220;Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.&#8221;[12]
The Despoiling Of America


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

bruzz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Ii'd rather live in a christian nation than a commie nation any day...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Not only that, the church has ALWAYS been a corporation. It has to be, to support its endeavors.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bruzz said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I rest my case.  Say goodbye to religious freedom.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



Don't rest or say goodbye too soon.....just how many dominionists are there exactly.....?


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Not only that, the church has ALWAYS been a corporation. It has to be, to support its endeavors.



perhaps

since it is a corporation

and since it believes it has the power to affect government

they should start paying their fair share of taxes?

sure would be nice if they started to pay their FAIR SHARE of taxes so the rest of us could keep a little more of our own money....

or do you support HIGHER TAXES?


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bruzz said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




of course you would

because in a christian nation you'd be a relatively free man

while only the people you hate (liberals, atheists, homosexuals, wiccans, democrats, intellectuals, evolutionists, abortionists) would have to live in fear

personally I'd rather live in a FREE country than a christian country

but
if I had to choose between a nation (christian) that would take away MY Rights and freedoms

or a nation (communist) that would take away YOUR rights and freedoms...

well

you can guess......


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, the church has ALWAYS been a corporation. It has to be, to support its endeavors.
> ...



let's start with all those black churches the dems like to politic in...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, the church has ALWAYS been a corporation. It has to be, to support its endeavors.
> ...




They want to have it both ways.  Take over the government and pay no taxes.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



well
you are right, of course

but the CONSERVATIVE will SPIN IT differently.....


they'll say..."but YOU DO have religious freedom....."
"as do we!"

"you can FREELY CHOOSE to join our religion OR we can FREELY CHOOSE to lock you up for choosing the WRONG religion!"

"there
we BOTH have religious freedom"


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



Wise up....you already live in a free country....many thanks to your Christian forebearers....

Today the real threat is not from the Christian right.....that is a commie lie...


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I think, once again, you are trying to be UNfair.

I know you can't help yourself...
deranged hatefilled lunatic conservative scumbags always behave badly....

I'd rather be FAIR
let's start with ALL churches at the same time......

I'm sure we''ll get much more tax relief from evangelical churches than we ever will from poor black churches


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



No, you fucking idiot. Calling the US a Christian nation in no way reduces the rights of anyone to practice religion. Negating Christianity, however, does. You're saying that if a person dares to bring religion into their politics on a personal level, if we DARE to refer to religion anywhere outside a church, that is restricting religious freedom.
You are saying (over and over again) that religious freedom can only be attained if we suppress Christianity.
Fucking nitwit.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



commies might say it but I have arrived at the conclusion that righ twing evangelical christians are trying real hard to take over our government NOT from any communist tract (which I have NEVER read) but, rather, from listening to the words of right wing evangelical conservative christians themselves.

remember
if a tree falls in the woods it DOES make a sound even if you don't hear it.

just because you have done a wonderful job of refusing to hear or read the words of the wel-organized right wing evangelical nutcases does NOT mean that they haven't spoken


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Yeah, all those evangelical chruches in backwaters across the US RAKE in the dough...while poor black churches, like Wright's church, languish.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> .....just how many dominionists are there exactly.....?



still waiting...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element of the ideology of the Christian Right. It touches every aspect of life and culture in this, one of the most successful and powerful political movements in American history. The idea that America's supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement. No understanding of the Christian Right is remotely adequate without this foundational concept.

But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway.

History is powerful. That's why it is important for the rest of society not only to recognize the role of creeping Christian historical revisionism, but our need to craft a compelling and shared story of American history, particularly as it relates to the role of religion and society. We need it in order to know not how the religious Right is wrong, but to know where we ourselves stand in the light of history, in relation to each other, and how we can better envision a future together free of religious prejudice, and ultimately, religious warfare.

We've seen how religious beliefs (and other ideologies) inspire people to view others as subhuman, deviant, and deserving of whatever happens to them, including death. It is the stuff of persecution, pogroms, and warfare. The framers of the U.S. Constitution struggled with how to inoculate the new nation against these ills, and in many respects, the struggle continues today. The story goes that when Benjamin Franklin, a hometown delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, emerged from the proceedings, people asked him what happened. His famous answer was "You have a republic, if you can keep it." To "keep it" in our time, we must appreciate the threat and dynamics of Christian nationalism, and the underlying historical revisionism that supports it. Then we can develop ways to counter it.
PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...




Nice Christian language


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...




once again you let your hatred cloud your judgement

just because you HATE liberals doens't automatically prove that black churches have more money than white evangelical churches

that is just...insane

I have no doubt (and I won't even bother to prove it cus I KNOW it is true)

that WHITE EVANGELICAL right wing churches rake in MUCH more money than black churches.

have you even seen any of those MASSIVE MEGA CHURCHES they have?
and they ALL have their own radio and tv stations

of course
to be fair
lots of those evangelical mega churches have LOTS of blacks in their congregations


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



what specifically about the right wing evangelicals threatens you most.....?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

You're wrong, Sky. You're wrong from the get go, where you laughably insist we aren't a Christian nation and have NEVER been a Christian nation. you can yammer all you like, but you're making an idiot of yourself by basing everything on a demonstrably FALSE PREMISE.

Grow the fuck up. If you want to argue that Christianity is a threat to freedom of religion and should therefore be shut down, just make that argument. But nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep mindlessly repeating the idiotic statement "The US isn't Christian and never has been. Those founding fathers guys weren't really Christians, either. Because if they were, they couldn't have supported freedom of religion".

Get in touch with reality. Or go light some incense and meditate or something. Because you come across as delusional.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



well
you fucking nitwit
he isn't saying THAT at all

it seems to me that he is merely stating (I hope I am right in my assertion)
right wing evangelical dominionist christians are ACTIVELY working to create a christian theocracy (something I believe)
and in a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY OTHER PEOPLES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM would go out the window

let's fact it
you fucking nitwit

the 10 commandments do NOT say "thou can worship ANY GOD thou wishest!"

it SPECIFICALLY SAYS (4 times, you fucking nitwit)
"THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY GOD BUT MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME~!"


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I know, I should suppress it, shouldn't I? How dare I accurately describe your idiocy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yes, she is saying exactly what I said she said. She has a long and well documented history of saying it. 

I love the way you guys pretend you mean something other than what you say.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Intense said:


> Dogma has no place in Government. Principle does.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You're wrong, Sky. You're wrong from the get go, where you laughably insist we aren't a Christian nation and have NEVER been a Christian nation. you can yammer all you like, but you're making an idiot of yourself by basing everything on a demonstrably FALSE PREMISE.
> 
> Grow the fuck up. If you want to argue that Christianity is a threat to freedom of religion and should therefore be shut down, just make that argument. But nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep mindlessly repeating the idiotic statement "The US isn't Christian and never has been. Those founding fathers guys weren't really Christians, either. Because if they were, they couldn't have supported freedom of religion".
> 
> Get in touch with reality. Or go light some incense and meditate or something. Because you come across as delusional.



the US has ALWAYS enjoyed religious freedom

our founding fathers SPECIFICALLY stated FREEDOM OF religion

freedom OF includes freedom FROM

the words "America is a christian nation" are NOT in the contitution

ALL Americans have ALWAYS had the CONSTTUTIONAL right to practice ANY religion or even NO religion.

MOST christian morals/laws are not only NOT laws in America but are ALSO unconstitutional

America is a SECULAR nation


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You're wrong, Sky. You're wrong from the get go, where you laughably insist we aren't a Christian nation and have NEVER been a Christian nation. you can yammer all you like, but you're making an idiot of yourself by basing everything on a demonstrably FALSE PREMISE.
> 
> Grow the fuck up. If you want to argue that Christianity is a threat to freedom of religion and should therefore be shut down, just make that argument. But nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep mindlessly repeating the idiotic statement "The US isn't Christian and never has been. Those founding fathers guys weren't really Christians, either. Because if they were, they couldn't have supported freedom of religion".
> 
> Get in touch with reality. Or go light some incense and meditate or something. Because you come across as delusional.



We're debating points of view, potty mouth.  Your view is the US is a Christian theocracy.  It's not a Christian nation just because most US citizens happen to be Christian.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Yeah. Name one. And provide a quote.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it only takes a few

just place them in the right places and let them go to work

put them on tv and give them hate radio talk shows and watch them bring in the converts


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




Not quite. He called himself a Christian, but did so while redefining the world to mean something totally different- like democratic socialists and progressives calling themselves liberals.


If only I still had that Jefferon Bible.



> [SIZE=+1]  I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished  anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all  others, ascribing to himself every _human_ excellence, and  believing he never claimed any other.  [/SIZE]


This puts him at odds with a fundamental pillar of Christian theology.

The Jefferson Bible: Syllabus


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong, Sky. You're wrong from the get go, where you laughably insist we aren't a Christian nation and have NEVER been a Christian nation. you can yammer all you like, but you're making an idiot of yourself by basing everything on a demonstrably FALSE PREMISE.
> ...



Sounds great.
But we aren't a secular nation. A secular nation doesn't require elected officials to be SWORN in on the bible. A secular nation doesn't print money that says "In God We Trust". A secular nation doesn't have a Declaration of Independence which refers to a Creator.

The rest of your rant is just a lunatic rant. Carry on.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



pat robertson

who created the powerful and influential ACLJ

and who created the CHRISTAN COALITION

and who owns tv and radio stations form which he broadcasts his theocratic beliefs daily

who blames liberals, atheist, homosexuals, wiccans etc for "god removing his cloak of protection"

who claims that the only way to get god to replace his cloak of protection is to "do something about the liberal problem"

one can find many quotes of his where he states his belief/plan to help "educate" (brainwash) the christian youth and then place them in powerful and influential positions with the intent of creating a christian theocracy

actually

I posted about 20 quotes of his last night PROVING what I say

I won't bother postingthem again because iI kow you are SOOOO brainwashed that you wil refuse to accept them

you probably won't even read them

you will, of course, deny them

I suggest that you google them for yourself
knowing full well that you won't


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




Christian and Free Mason

Kinda mutually exclusive, really, given what the two teach.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Why did they go to Church?





Why did Obama?


Social network, appearances, propriety...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Not only that, the church has ALWAYS been a corporation. It has to be, to support its endeavors.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



"I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag."
Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, November 9, 1991.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...







> A secular nation doesn't require elected officials to be SWORN in on the bible.


And we don't. In fact, such a requirement constitutes a religious test and is illegal- read the Constitution.


> A secular nation doesn't print money that says "In God We Trust"



And we didn't until McCarthyism and the rise of the Christian Right Wing


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong, Sky. You're wrong from the get go, where you laughably insist we aren't a Christian nation and have NEVER been a Christian nation. you can yammer all you like, but you're making an idiot of yourself by basing everything on a demonstrably FALSE PREMISE.
> ...



Er..no, my view is NOT that we are a theocracy.

Once again, your premise is wrong. You maintain that if the US is founded on Christian elements, it's a theocracy.

You're wrong. You've been told you're wrong. Everyone has said "we don't think it's a theocracy" but every time you are in a corner you trot out that egregious accusation again.

I know what a theocracy is. The US is not one. We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, the first and foremost of which is INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, particularly FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

What the hell is your IQ? I don't usually care, but in your case I'm starting to feel bad because you don't seem capable of comprehending what is going on.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Allie, read the Constitution.



> no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.




Moron.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Thank you for acknowledging we are a Christian nation.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



It's a free country, not a Christian nation.  The Treaty of Tripoli spelled that out.  American citizens are not constitutionally Christians.  Quite the contrary.  No mention of God in the constitution.  The Constitution is in fact the first significant governing charter in the history of mankind that does not invoke any deities, even impersonal ones, for support.

Some Christians would like to change that and make the US a theocracy  I've named a few Christian organizations oriented that way.

Thanks for leaving out the foul language.  Maybe next time you can avoid the ad hominems.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Why did they go to Church?
> ...



LOL...a librul being honest about BO?


About Christian principles....which show up in the founding fathers work....here's one...

 &#8220;Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar&#8217;s, and unto God the things that are God&#8217;s&#8221;  Mathew 22:21

We are a Christian nation....but we do not have a Christian government per se/theocracy.....it's secular...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Allie, read the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not unconstitutional if the participants choose to do it. Then it is an expression of religious freedom.

The fact that it universally is accepted in the US is evidence that we're a Christian nation.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



"But we aren't a secular nation."

yes we are

" A secular nation doesn't require elected officials to be SWORN in on the bible."

ha ha
there is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT!

you believe so much that just aint so.....

I can't imagine being so stupid....

I also find it amusing (and ironic) that you keep INSISTING that we ALL have religious freedom

and yet
here you are INSISTING that we DO NOT HAVE The religous freedom to be sworn in without your christian bible.....


well
we do
there has already been a muslim using the koran
and should an atheist be elected he/she would have a right to be sworn in witjhout the CHRISTIAN bible


" A secular nation doesn't print money that says "In God We Trust"."

in god we trust (you stupid nitwit) was added to our currency AFTER the civil war.

our founding fathers had nothing to do wit hit

it was merely a nod (once again) to whiny selfindulgant demanding christians to placate them after the hoorros of the war and in no way makes us "christian"

btw...

I'm looking at a bill right now
and I see...a pyramid...
does that mean that America is really an egyptian nation?


once again
you reveal just how woefully ignroant you truly are

you know SO MUCH that just aint so!



" A secular nation doesn't have a Declaration of Independence which refers to a Creator."

the actual words;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator "

My creator was my mother and father

muslims would say that THEIR creator was allah

zoroastians would say that THEIR creator was ZORO (musta been hard to sword fight with a big cape always in the way)


any American with any religion that is different from christianity might say that they have a different creator.... 

"creator" is NOT "christian god"

the words "America is a christian nation" does NOT appear in the constitution


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Allie, read the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Allie, read the Constitution.
> ...




Can't keep track of your own bullshit?



AllieBaba said:


> But we aren't a secular nation. A secular nation doesn't require elected  officials to be SWORN in on the bible. .



Mental retardation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

To those who think it would be better if we agreed to call this a Christian nation, answer these questions:

Do you want agents of any government to make religious decisions for you?

Do you want any government to help you, directly or indirectly, as you try to persuade others of the truth of your religious beliefs?

Do you believe parents are not always the proper source of religious instruction for young children, and if not, do you want government agents to decide which parents are wrong or inadequate regarding religion?

Do you want government agents to try to force a preference for religious beliefs on anyone?

Do you believe any government should tax citizens to pay for encouraging others to accept religious beliefs not shared by those being taxed?

If you answer "No!" you must agree that this is a free country, not a Christian nation.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> zoroastians would say that THEIR creator was ZORO (musta been hard to sword fight with a big cape always in the way)






Ahura Mazda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Allie, read the Constitution.
> ...



no, it isn't

it is merely evidence that MOST elected officials happen to be christians

which makes me think.....

you HATE liberals an ddemocrats....

you believe that liberals and democrats HATE christians and HATE god

and yet
god hating liberals and dmeocrats keep getting elected to office...

does it boither you that god hating liberals and democrats use your christian bible to be sworn in?

(do they spit onthose bibles before they do so?
do they burn them afterwards?)

and
if godhating liberals and democrats keep getting elected to office
does that prove that America is a god hating and christian hating nation?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Nobody said we are constitutionally Christians. That's your own phrase. 

Try to concentrate on understanding what people are saying before you head into lala land.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > zoroastians would say that THEIR creator was ZORO (musta been hard to sword fight with a big cape always in the way)
> ...



Thanks for the link

I hope I didn't offend...

I couldn't help the joke....


it just popped out....


have just started reading the link.....
wil admit that other than their existance I really didn't kow anything about zoroastrianism....

so
I guess there is no cape?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



What is with you and Sky telling me what I think?
I say what I think. I don't need you to re-phrase for me.

So let's talk some more about ad hominems...Sky? Sky?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



We have never been a Christian nation.  The Constitution is godless.  We are a secular society.

We have religious freedom.    Lets keep it that way.  

We have a Bill of Rights to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



you're good!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Incorrect premise.

We are a Christian nation and have always been.

But keep babbling.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Already addressed. If accepted practice, without requirement, is to swear on a bible, then that is evidence we really are a Christian nation.

Not a theocracy.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah. Me. Today and all the other times Sky has dragged this idiotic argment out.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You called?  

I see your point.  In one way, because most citizens call themselves Christian we could be called a Christian country.  But in another way, we can't.  The Founders did not intend to establish religion and the Constitution is godless.

Incredible as it may seem there are certain Christian groups who won't be happy until they create a Christian theocracy.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Incorrect premise.
> 
> We are a Christian nation and have always been.
> 
> But keep babbling.



fact: every American has a right to worship ANY religion or NO RELIGION whatsoever!(which is COMPLETELY AGAINST what the christian god DEMANDS!) 

fact: there are NO LAWS in America that are CHRISTIAN SPECIFIC laws
(note: there may be laws that are not SPECIFICALLY christian which the christian bible discusses but these laws are NOT based upon the christian gods bad temoer, wicked disposition and irrational beliefs)

fact: most of the LAWSof GOD (leviticus, for example) are NOT laws in America

America is a SECULAR nation


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



and alliebabble is one of them


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> None the less, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Christians.  An important distinction.  They took great care to craft governing documents based on reason, not religion.



One more time.

Jefferson was a Christian by his own words, your opinion of his religion has a lot less weight than his words do.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...


Nobody said the founders intended to establish a state religion. We said they were Christians and there are reams of evidence that suports their intention to form a nation which would protect the rights of men as delineated in the Bible, and which would provide for all men to worship, openly, as they please, with no fears of repercussions.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > None the less, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Christians.  An important distinction.  They took great care to craft governing documents based on reason, not religion.
> ...



Jefferson was a Deist.  Why do you think he cut and pasted his own bible?  Jefferson is well documented.  He made many contradictory statements about religion.  You draw one conclusion, I draw another.

"Jefferson and Paine, at least, were called atheists in their day, but it was their enemies doing the calling, and the evidence that either was an atheist in any other sense except "a non-believer in revealed Christianity," which the term sometimes meant in the late 1700s, is scant at best. The indisputable fact that they were not in fact orthodox Christians and did not establish an official Christian government is quite sufficient to support the ideas most important to me."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_ncn.html


Ben Franklin was definitely a Deist.

Point is the Constitution is godless and drafted upon reason.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



There is no Bible in the Constitution.  Our laws were founded on Common Law not the Bible.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
No, Allie certainly is not, liar.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> To those who think it would be better if we agreed to call this a Christian nation, answer these questions:
> 
> Do you want agents of any government to make religious decisions for you?
> *They already are....teaching kids in public schools that homosexuality is ok...is this the work of Christians or Secularists...how free is this?*
> ...


.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Yes, according to Sky nothing good or positive has ever come of Christianity. Hence we are not a Christian nation.
It makes perfect sense if you're in second grade.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, according to Sky nothing good or positive has ever come of Christianity. Hence we are not a Christian nation.
> It makes perfect sense if you're in second grade.



Stick to my actual words, Allie.  Show me a post where I state that nothing good has ever come from Christianity.

The  Sermon on the Mount comes from Christianity, it's beautiful.  'Love others.  Do good to those who harm you. Turn the other cheek' 

Christians cannot claim the Constitution of the United States.  It's godless, secular.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




You have clearly stated you don't support a Christian theocracy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

bruzz said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > One can rightly say we are a Christian nation...because most of us are Christians and we make up this nation...
> ...



What is a real Christian and who gets to decide?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You cannot counter lies with more lies. Why do you insist on lying about the reality that the founders considered themselves Christians just because other people are trying to lie and twist the Constitution to protect Christians above everything else.

The Dominion movement wants to do exactly what you say, but they will have to go through me, and a lot of other people, before they can. You are being paranoid in that you are so worried about them that you twist the truth yourself. Stick to the facts, and use them against them. Otherwise everyone will dismiss you as a lunatic.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bruzz said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...




There are cultural Christians and practicing Christians I think is the point.  You and Care seem like real Christians to me.  Allie too.

I appreciate that you'll all keep an eye on the extremist Christians lest I descend into paranoia and conspiracy theory.   

It's been known to happen.

The mega-churches scare me.  The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Coral Ridge Ministeries.  They have a lot of power and they appear to have taken over the GOP.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You keep saying that as if somehow we will come to believe it.....sorry...

...we were a Christian nation right from the start.....the Constitution was based on the existence of God.....and we started off being a very Christian society...and are still today to a great extent...

Secularism did not even exist back in 1776...atheists did not even have a rational explanation for the world until Darwin came along in the next century...thus people were very religious in almost all ways...

However....our founders did not wish to favor one religion over another....they did not want a theocracy....this is why they came to America....to get away from theocratic religions...which is the reason for the no establishment of religion clause...however that certainly didn't mean religious values and principles couldn't become law...in that day there were by and large no other kind of values in existence...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

bruzz said:


> At this point we need to define god, as god can have many definitions. I will throw my definitions out there, but do not claim them to be correct.
> 
> Definitions of god:
> Founding fathers: God= reason.
> ...



Bullshit all across the board. Only idiots ever try to argue that God = reason, and the Founders were not idiots. Christians do not believe God is a higher power, they believe He is a person, and no one things that God = power, because power is something that comes out of an electrical outlet. Why don't you throw out some more trash?

Before you ask me to define God myself, I reject the notion that He needs to be defined, or can be. Before you can ask me to define God you have to be able to define yourself in such a way that someone who has never heard of you would be able to recognize you if they saw you anywhere. You cannot even define yourself in such a way that it make sense to anyone, and you want people to define God.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Secularism did not even exist back in 1776...atheists did not even have a rational explanation for the world until Darwin came along in the next century...thus people were very religious in almost all ways...



There's a difference between secularism and evolution and evolution never attempts to explain how the world started.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> bruzz said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Are you talking about the Pilgrims?  The Anglican Church?  They came to America and immediately oppressed the Quakers.

That's why there is no mention of God in the Constitution.

The government is secular.  No divine kings here.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



No, they haven't.
And they have a lot less power than Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Planned Parenthood hasn't gotten a President elected.  The Christian right has.  They own the GOP.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

So I checked the Christian Coalition for scary right wing extremism.

Christian Coalition of America | Defending America's Godly Heritage!

Look what I found:

"As incredible (or not) as it may seem, senior citizens at a Georgia rest home have been told by a company that contracts with the city of Port Wentworth that, since the meals they provide are primarily subsidized by the federal government, they should not openly pray before meals."

"The Democrats won a very narrow victory on Thursday in the United States House of Representatives when they passed their clearly unconstitutional "DISCLOSE Act" H.R. 5175. Considering the fact that the Democrats overwhelmingly control the House of Representatives -- as they do the United States Senate -- the 219-206 vote was close indeed. 

It is quite obvious, the 36 Democrats who voted against the "DISCLOSE Act" and against their Democrat leadership are hearing the footsteps of the American voters. Only two liberal Republicans, Mike Castle, running for governor of Delaware and the freshman from Louisiana, Ahn "Joseph" Cao, voted for this First Amendment-stifling legislation. 

Nancy Pelosi had a hard time getting "moderate" Democrats to vote for the bill, so she carved out a special sweet-heart deal for the National Rifle Association, exempting them from the bill's campaign finance reporting regulations. Her left-wingers got angry over that, so she carved out more exemptions -- as she did for most of the country's unions -- for other Democrat-favored groups. And that is how she won her narrow victory. "

"From the government&#8217;s Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the &#8220;DISCLOSE Act&#8221;, which stands for &#8220;Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections&#8221;.  How clever.  And how disingenuous.

It&#8217;s being championed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in an attempt to get around this year&#8217;s Supreme Court decision which threw out restrictions on freedom of speech for unions and corporations in political campaigns.

The claim is that large amounts of money spent by corporations on political speech somehow corrupts the system, but it should be noted that Schumer&#8217;s bill would reinstate no restrictions on unions, just corporations and average citizens.  In other words, he only seems to want to cast light on &#8220;some&#8221; spending."

Which is all very interesting.

But I see nothing on the site that encourages theocracy or state-dictated religion.

So what's the story, Sky? Do you think Christians shouldn't be able to vote, period? Or should they just not be allowed to participate in politics?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Works for me.

Read this Allie:

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/wilcoxc/guth.pdf


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



and every time he "states it clearly" he lies.

I have no doubt that he BELIEVES it when he says it

but it is still a lie...

look

he is MOST vociferous about giving "evidence"  tha America IS a christian nation

he has been very clear about THAT, too

he may say, today, "I do NOT support a christian theocracy"

but as familiar as I am with alliebabble I have no doubt that if christians ever have enough power/influence to enact sharia...er...I mean....christian laws then he wil be the first to DEFEND these acts

today he says "I do not support a christian theocracy"

but every time he says "America IS a christian nation" he means "so I have no problem with christian biblical laws against atheist, homosexuals, feminists, wiccans....."


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




True.  Allie is against gay rights, feminism, wiccans and atheists.  She's as right wing as they come.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


 
Wrong premise. Again. The government doesn't have to be secular to deny the divinity of kings.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

""Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the 'fence' of the Webster letter and the 'wall' of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions."

NOW with David Brancaccio. Politics & Economy. God and Government. Thomas Jefferson's Letter | PBS


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Read the Constitution.  No God there.  It's a secular document.


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> So I checked the Christian Coalition for scary right wing extremism.
> 
> Christian Coalition of America | Defending America's Godly Heritage!
> 
> ...





9. "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson


7. "(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson

6. "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." Pat Robertson

"Well, I totally concur." Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen." "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

"Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' and 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping." Pat Robertson, clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez

"If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to." 
--The 700 Club, June 8, 1998 

"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals - the two things seem to go together." 
--The 700 Club, January 21, 1993 

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA
-- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991



We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29

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


according to conservative christian pat robertson ONLY CHRISTIANS are moral enough to
hold public office
teach in our schools
serve in the military

I imagine he would deny non-christians the righ tto vote

(and YOU would support him!)

newt gingrich said
"we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious (christian) beliefs and see to it that they can never b echange again"


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Actually he defined it as something different from orthodox Christianity.  His words show he believed in following the tenants that Christ taught with his words ...in the only sense in which he (Jesus) wished us to be.  He was similar to many other Protestants who fought against religious practices they felt were not what Christ taught, such as Martin Luther.  To me, it shows he was a good Christian to say such a thing.

Heaven forbid that people who saw the problems with Orthodox Christianity, the power/control, the hypocrisy, etc. would want to return to the actual teachings of Jesus.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



I did the same thing.  From their own website:


> The Yurica Report is run by two senior citizens--two old ladies in running shoes!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



To me it shows Jefferson could reason and he distanced himself from the supernatural aspects of religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.



He drafted and signed a godless Constitution. This is the basis of our national government, not the Bible.



The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality. He is most closely connected with the religious philosophy of Deism, and Unitarianism. He is reported to have said, *"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 blind-folded fear".*

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


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The point is the Founders took care to assert it is "We the people" who govern, not God.  They purposely left God out of the Constitution.
> 
> This is NOT a Christian nation.  It is wrong to say America was founded on Christian principles.   The Dominionists want everyone to go there because they seek a Christian theocracy.
> 
> ...



Right on the first point, wrong on the second.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Sheesh, Sky. If that's the sort of propaganda you read, no wonder you can't understand English.


----------



## Intense (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



It's you that was spoon fed the rewriting of history through your schooling. That's not your fault. The proof is in the founding documents. The Nation existed under the articles of confederation for more than a decade before the Constitution became the supreme law of the land SD. 

Original Texts.   Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sheesh, Sky. If that's the sort of propaganda you read, no wonder you can't understand English.


What are you referencing?


----------



## rikules (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.



well

he was wrong


there is no god


so therefore freedom and liberty could NOT come from something that doesn't exist


----------



## bodecea (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.
> ...


Sorry, Jefferson did not.   It was Madison.  Jefferson was in France at the time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



Islam scares me a hell of a lot, so I understand being scared. You do not see me running around posting lies because I am afraid, do you?

Let me try this in simple words, you are not God, you do not get to decide if someone is a good Christian, or a good Muslim. Nor do you get to label them as cultural Christians, Deists, or anything else because they do not fit your image of what a practicing Christian. I do not fit your definition of a practicing Christian, but I am still a Christian, unless Jesus comes back and tells me differently I will remain one until I decide otherwise.

Your attitude amazes me. You claim to find Dominionists reprehensible, and claim to be afraid of them, but you insist that anyone who does not fit their definition of Christian is something else. Why do you allow your enemies to define you? That is an indication of a weak person and a small mind. Extend yourself and grow beyond your enemy.

The Christian radicals only appear to have taken over the GOP if you ignore facts. Reagan mobilized the right wing and used it to get into office, and promptly ignored them when he got there. If you had better wources you would know just how betrayed they felt by that, but they also learned that the only chance they have of making an impact is by accepting that they have no real power to influence policy. Ignore them and let them rant and posture to their hearts content. If they actually ran anything Robertson would have won the Republican nomination. The fact that he lost really quick should tell you more than anything else just how little power they really have.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Well put. I'll rep you after my 24 hours is up.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well said but things are a little different in the south. Christian radicals here will steal, lie and cheat you out of your $ 6 days a week and quote the Bible on Sunday why they will be saved and sent to heaven as a believer.
Robertson HAD taken over the GOP when Bush I ran in Georgia. The religous right put in a convicted felon as party head here and they attempted to steal the show and put in Robertson even though Bush won the statein the primary. And they called themselves Christian all the way while being liars and thieves. If not for us real conservatives that do not tolerate religion in government Robertson and his thugs would have taken over.
I remember when the southern churches backed George Wallace and quoted the Bible in support of segregation.
Your Reagan analogy is correct. However, just like George Bush he bullshitted the Christian right. They actually believed both men believed in and were the face each put on every time they appealed to that bloc.
If you are a real Christian you never have to go around telling everyone how much of one you are or bring up God and Jesus at every political rally. Folks will know you are  Christian by your ACTIONS.
Those that quote politicians' speeches that are full of religous rhetoric are naive to believe that is any indication of faith. Politicians lie to get elected.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Well said but things are a little different in the south. Christian radicals here will steal, lie and cheat you out of your $ 6 days a week and quote the Bible on Sunday why they will be saved and sent to heaven as a believer.
> Robertson HAD taken over the GOP when Bush I ran in Georgia. The religous right put in a convicted felon as party head here and they attempted to steal the show and put in Robertson even though Bush won the statein the primary. And they called themselves Christian all the way while being liars and thieves. If not for us real conservatives that do not tolerate religion in government Robertson and his thugs would have taken over.
> I remember when the southern churches backed George Wallace and quoted the Bible in support of segregation.
> Your Reagan analogy is correct. However, just like George Bush he bullshitted the Christian right. They actually believed both men believed in and were the face each put on every time they appealed to that bloc.
> ...



I lived in the south most of my life, I know what it is right. I stood up in a church once and denounced the pastor after he refused to pay me the money he promised me for the work he did. The idiot actually tried to tell me I had to respect him because he was an elder. I guess he never bothered to read Timothy. He knows what it says now, believe me.

Politicians always lie. All of them. It is the nature of the beast, and is why I will never believe anything they say.

How can you tell a politician is lying?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

rikules said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...








*NO CAPES!*​


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




A secular society?_ Maybe_.


A secular government, yes.


Probably best to not confuse the two.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



So they require it- no wait, they don't- no wait, it's custom...


Make up your fucking mind, dumbass


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > None the less, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Christians.  An important distinction.  They took great care to craft governing documents based on reason, not religion.
> ...




And Maxine Waters is a liberal by her own words, yet she wants to nationalize the oil industry....


----------



## Father Time (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> "From the governments Department of Perverse Acronyms comes the DISCLOSE Act, which stands for Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections.  How clever.  And how disingenuous.



Not as bad as the uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate, fuck it, the USAPATRIOT act.


----------



## Father Time (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.



And he also clearly didn't like government favoring one religion over another.

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

In fact the term separation of church and state comes from one of his letters.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Let's ask him.



> *  He described his own compilation to Charles Thomson as "a  paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book  and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of  time or subject.  A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have  never seen."  He told John Adams that he was rescuing the Philosophy of  Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught," from the "artificial  vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have  travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power  for themselves."  After having selected from the evangelists "the very  words only of Jesus," he believed "there will be found remaining the  most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered  to man." *



The Jefferson Bible

He said elsewhere that it was clear to him the hands of Man had corrupted the texts to serve personal and political ends through he ages.

Basically, he was like Muhammad and wanted to correct what people had done to it.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



SE didn't say secularism was a necessary condition for the denial of he 'divine right to rule'.

You attacked someone earlier of reading comprehension?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 8, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



To claim Jesus was not divine if the to throw away the entire premise of Christianity- that the LORD payed for your sins by sending his only begotten son, who was of himself (the concept of divinity multiplicity goes back to Genesis)to live a sinless life and pay what he owed Satan in accordance with the greatest bet ever made. This carries over into Revelation, where it is made clear to those familiar with Jewish property laws that the debt is payed, yet God has not yet claimed back the Earth, though it is his to rule and he holds the deed to creation, sealed with seven seals.

If Jesus was not divine, he cannot be sinless, since we are born imperfect and blighted by the stains of the world's fallen state (see: original sin and 'noone is without sin'). Hence he cannot pay the the price (the life of a sinless man) he payed upon the cross ('it is finished'). Hence salvation is not possible through Jesus- unless h was divine, starting with a clean slate upon his birth, and lived a sinless life.


----------



## THE LIGHT (Jul 8, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> James Madison;
> "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"
> -letter to Thomas Jefferson
> 
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 8, 2010)

Father Time said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to guess when it comes to Jefferson. He clearly stated freedom and liberty came from God and God alone.
> ...



No shit?


----------



## Walt (Jul 9, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Just two questions. Which religion did they put in the schools. Which book did they print and distribute to said schools?


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 9, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Oh PULEEZE -can't you do better than to drag out this old, tired standby of the left who want to pretend the founders were anything but Christian?  

Next thing you know you'll be insisting Christ was actually a communist.   There are more than 200 founders of our nation.  Do you really have no clue why people like you want to focus on just a couple to the exclusion of all others -even when the writings of those people prove you aren't being truthful?  What you WISH to be true will never make it so -but your ilk have sure been giving it your best shot since the 1930s.  Ever study THAT phenomenon along the way?  LOL


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



NOT TRUE.  there are several religions that claim to be Christian that do not view Christ as God, they view him as the Son of God, or as the messiah, but not God himself.....Unitarians, Mormons as 2 examples...


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



In Jefferson's opinion, he was the true Christian....the true follower of Christ's teachings....does that make him muslim?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



there would be NO Constitution, without the Declaration of Independence....the two go hand in hand....


----------



## pinqy (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Ok, why wouldn't there be a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence?  And surely you're not forgetting about the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## editec (Jul 9, 2010)

*



The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity 

Click to expand...

 
True*


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

John Adams 
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." 
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Thomas Jefferson 
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." 
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. 

"I am a real Christian &#8211; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." 
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Benjamin Franklin 
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution 

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. 

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. 

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; 

But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure." 
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Which God were they referring to in all of their writings ?



Roman catholic.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...


All cults and spinoffs.


And the bible warns of us false prophets and churches- Lucifer's deceptions. The broad and winding road to damnation.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 9, 2010)

U.S. Constitution: A secular document?
By Judge Roy Moore



> Some who mistakenly consider our Constitution to be a "secular" document with no relationship to God will no doubt question the relevance of asking candidates about moral issues. But our Founding Fathers would have considered it strange if we did not insist that our leaders clarify their views on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and the intimate relationship between God and our federal Constitution.
> 
> Dr. Benjamin Franklin, a prominent leader at the Constitutional Convention, not only called for prayer during the deliberations, but also later stated that he had "so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that [he could] hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the Constitution] to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being."
> 
> ...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



What criteria are you using to categorize a religion a cult?

Believing that Christ was the Son of God, the Messiah (as the Bible says he is) is not Christian?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.  I posit the US is a secular government.  God in the Declaration of Independence is mostly likley the Deist version rather than orthodox Christian.  We're on opposite political sides now, Care.  Can we still remain friends?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



No.
The Declaration of Independence would be nothing but fodder unless the Founders wrote AND PASSED the US Constitution. 
The Declaration of Independence is not law. 
Have any of you taken the time to get off your butts and do any research? If you did you would find that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the religous ideas that were proposed to be included in the Constitution WERE VOTED DOWN.
And you still claim we are a nation founded on religion.
Do your homework.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Let's remember the Declaration of Independence was a separation from King George who was considered a divine king.

The whole intention of the Founders all along was no state religion.  We were never designed to be a Christian nation, but a secular society with relgious freedom.

A freedom that some Christians seek to reverse.  Coral Ridge Ministeries, Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition etc etc.  Are you for them or against them?

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."  Bailey Smith 

Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."Beverly Lahaye. Concerned Women of America

"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil." Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)


"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."*

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."  
George W Bush



http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2010)

The Founders definitely did not want the crown influence in the church as most of you have correctly stated here. But you conveniently leave out the other part of your own argument. That is what truly amazes me how blind you folks are.
The flip side was also true. The Founders knew all too well that the flip side of that was if you allowed the crown, or any form of government, to have any powers or influence in any church or religon then that allows that religion to have power and influence over the government. You can never have one without the other as evidenced by the English government they ran from and fought. They knew it first hand.
And they wanted no part of it and all of our laws reflect that.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

> The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The amendment *prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances*.





Has the entire history of mankind ever seen a Constitution such as ours?  

Was the Constitution not created and inspired by predominantly religious men who by their Christian nature made a point of not designing an exclusive Christian nation?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Founders definitely did not want the crown influence in the church as most of you have correctly stated here. But you conveniently leave out the other part of your own argument. That is what truly amazes me how blind you folks are.
> The flip side was also true. The Founders knew all too well that the flip side of that was if you allowed the crown, or any form of government, to have any powers or influence in any church or religon then that allows that religion to have power and influence over the government. You can never have one without the other as evidenced by the English government they ran from and fought. They knew it first hand.
> And they wanted no part of it and all of our laws reflect that.



Exactly.  Which is why they left God out of the Constitution and designed our country as a secular nation with religious freedom.

The Bible is not mentioned.  We are not a Christian nation in the sense of how we were designed.

It may be convenient for some to call us a Christian country because so many of its citizens are at least nominally Christian.  That's vastly different than the intent of the Founders.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> > The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.
> >
> > The amendment *prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances*.
> 
> ...



No.  There is no God in the Consitution.  It's a complete fantasy to claim Christian responsibility for a secular document.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Do your own. 
Whether or not religion is in the consititution is NOT the question.

Define "founded". This country was "founded" with the Declaration of Independence.

It was FOUNDED on Christian principles. That does NOT mean we are a theocracy. Nobody has said that. That does NOT mean we don't have religious freedom, we certainly do (a nice Christian tenet). That does NOT mean we must adhere to certain religious ceremonies.

What it DOES mean is IT WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. The founding fathers discussed religion and Christianity ad nauseum and we have those discussions. They FOUNDED the country on religious principles, but they ultimately decided for us to be free to worship as we please, we could not include religion in our constitution. Wise move. Doesn't change the fact that we are FOUNDED on and firmly rooted in Christianity.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

I'd like to see the day a group of non-Christians could come up with anything so enduring for their own people...A country of Muslims for example.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



The Constitution is a godless document.  Jesus, the Bible and God are absent in it.  The Constitution is the document on which our country is founded.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> I'd like to see the day a group of non-Christians could come up with anything so enduring for their own people...A country of Muslims for example.







The Constitution is godless.  I can't imagine any Christians leaving God out of anything big.  I'm not a Christian.  What's your beef with non-christians?    You have heard of religious freedom haven't you?  That's why we have a secular constitution.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > > The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.
> ...





It's a complete fantasy to go back in time and try to historically remove those men from their own very nature which inspired them to create such a Constitution in the first place.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



They're not true religions tho, they're manmade.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



When this country was founded the majority of it's citizens practiced Christianity and Christian principles.
Allie, you know that is not the same as the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. 
When this country was founded Christian principles certainly influenced the Founders and in a positive way.
That also in no way means our GOVERNMENT was founded on Christian principles. 
Where is an eye for an eye and the banning of BBQ pork sandwiches in the law? For that matter, where is that in every day life?
Just not true.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


And that is exactly the reason the Constitution is godless.  Because folks like you make judgements of other peoples paths and decide who is and who isn't a 'true christian'.  Iff we were a solely Christian nation these 'untrue' failths would be outlawed.  We would be allowed only 'the one true faith' as defined by who?

Our country is founded by the will of the people not the will of God.    That's why the Constitution starts "We the People"


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Do you read their minds?  What inspired them to keep God out of the Constitution?  You can make up any fantasy you wish about the mental states of the signers of the Constitution but the one thing you can't claim is that God or Jesus is in the Consitution.  Reason won.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





  Nobody said we are a solely Christian nation or that Christianity was _in the constitution_ but keep repeating the obvious and pretend you're saying anything new.  ZZzzzz


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You would like us to be a Christian nation.  We're not.  Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and render to God the things that are God.  We started this country by the will of the people, not the will of God.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Thanks for owning it.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

Skydancer the peaceful buddha has now declared herself my enemy!  












			
				Sky Dancer said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received 29 reputation points from Sky Dancer.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



:rollseyes  in disgust and contempt for such obvious stupidity

LOTS of people are saying "America IS a christian nation"
and when they say it they mean "OUR brand of christianity (you know, the one TRUE brand) deserves SPECIAL RIGHTS. And OUR beliefs and morals should be the LAWS of the 
LAND"

and LOTS of people INSIST that our constitution either;
a. IS a CHRISTIAN constitution
or
b. SPECIFIES god (the christian god...er...I mean...the evangelical protestant white conservative possibly republican but most likely "teabagging" god)


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Skydancer the peaceful buddha has now declared herself my enemy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I offer an equal kind regard to enemies.  If it was up to you I would not be able to practice my path.  "First, they came for the Muslims.  I didn't speak because I wasn't a Muslim."


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



When God was in this nation it was a greater country than it is now, America is going downhill more and more everyday.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Some Christians think they are at war with those of us who point to the Constitution for the secular document that it is.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



God was never in the Constitution, by design.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



g bush the first in chicago;

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, *I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.*

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jul 9, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> txlonghorn said:
> 
> 
> > Truce?  Dream on ...they'd rather die than agree to any part of Christianity in our nation's conception.  What is so odd is that we all seem to agree that Christianity was intentionally left out of our government for reasons that we have extensively discussed...to death actually.  And it seems like we all have the same idea that God, Jesus and the holy grail were purposefully left out of the constitution to protect religious freedom or the freedom to ignore religion altogether if that's your choosing.  Where we seem to be locked up is on the fact that these men were indeed, by self proclamation, Christian in their faith.  So while the grand ol' America may not have been born out of Christianity...there would appear,  from all the links provided here that support the notion, that Christianity and the acknowledgment of Christ as the Son of God, did indeed guide these men in their endeavor to form a more perfect union as ONE NATION....UNDER GOD
> ...



It's not about injecting MY beliefs.  I'm not.  My beliefs of no significance here and play NO part in my opinion.  I'm simply looking back at history and making evident what is there.  At the same time, I think you misunderstood my point.  We actually agree that religion has NO place in government.  That's one reason why this country is so great...or...USE TO BE.  But that's not the REAL argument here, is it?  The argument is whether or not it was founded on religious beliefs.  And I don't think anyone with half a brain can scan the documents that have been preserved throughout the years and conclude otherwise.  That doesn't mean that religion is weaved into it, but it WAS used in constructing it.  That's my point.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



exactly

and not just "some people"

PROMINENT people (limbaugh, coulter, oreily, beck,most of fox news etc...)
who have been waging the CULTURE WAR for the past 20 years


----------



## Valerie (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Skydancer the peaceful buddha has now declared herself my enemy!
> ...





 






> The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
> 
> Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

txlonghorn said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > txlonghorn said:
> ...



That's a supposition that cannot be proved.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



God was in this Govt by choice of the people, until Madalyn Murray O'Hair started the destruction of America ( by the way she want some ice water).


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



See, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is exactly the kind of American protected by the Constitution.  She was an atheist.

If it was up to you she wouldn't have been free to speak her mind in America.

George HW Bush:

" No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

This is the danger of viewing America as a Christian nation.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



She could have spoke her mind all she wanted no one is against free speech, it's her actions that caused Americas downfall.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



That's only because you claim the US is a Christian nation.  It's a secular nation with freedom of religion.  That means we have lots of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Scientologists, atheists, wiccans, LDS, JW. etc etc etc.  We are a plurality, not a Christian nation.  Preach that in your churches and no one objects,  but say it in public and some of us will say something.  Free speech.  We both have it.  We live in a free country, not a Christian country.  There is a movement in our country to make America a Christian theocracy.  May they never succeed.

Why don't Christians welcome a separation of church and state?  Render to Caesar and all.   I thought it was a teaching of Jesus?  

I disagree with you that the country has not had a 'downfall' becaused of one outspoken atheist.  It's that kind of view that makes some Christians want to make the US a Christian theocracy so they can silence the atheists.   HW Bush famously said atheists are not citizens or patriots.

Not on my watch.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Interesting....by choice, eh?   So FORCING kids to say a prayer in school was a choice?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



So, you are saying that god is not in this nation anymore?  Who chased him/her away?  And if he/she can be chased away....what does that say about his/her powers?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution. 

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." 

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802: 

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." 

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both. 

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom: 

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." 

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822: 

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." 

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity. 

The Declaration of Independence 
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone. 

 Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence. 

Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation. 

Treaty of Tripoli 
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states: 

 Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers
Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY "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 Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." 

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797. 

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2). 

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government. 

Common Law 
 Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law." 

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage. 

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814: 

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. 

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." 

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes: 

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." 

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody." 

The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial. 
Little-Known U.S. Document Proclaims America's Government is Secular - The Early America Review, Summer 1997


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



We used to be a Christian nation, it is shrinking as we speak due to a number of reason.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Forcing them, I think (a moment of silence) doesn't force you to do nothing.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



So you think God Will force himself on you.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
> 
> If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
> 
> ...



The framers left it out because of the bad name Christianity got from the actions of Roman Catholic in England.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



What action of hers caused America's downfall?


----------



## pinqy (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> The framers left it out because of the bad name Christianity got from the actions of Roman Catholic in England.


Since the Catholic Church had been effectively banned in England since before the first English colonies were even settled in America, and the Test Acts which required denunciation of the Catholic Church were in full effect in England at the time of the writing of the Constitution, your claim seems a little strange.  Or do you just not know your history?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.



There is plenty of evidence that Christianity had significant influence on the founding of America, including the creating of the Constitution.  You seem to still be ignoring Christianity's contribution to America's founding.

 [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Origins-American-Constitutionalism-Donald-Lutz/dp/0807115061/ref=pd_sim_b_1]Amazon.com: The Origins of American Constitutionalism (9780807115060): Donald S. Lutz: Books[/ame]


> In The Origins of American Constitutionalism, Donald S. Lutz challenges the prevailing notion that the United States Constitution was either essentially inherited from the British or simply invented by the Federalists in the summer of 1787. His political theory of constitutionalism acknowledges the contributions of the British and the Federalists. Lutz also asserts, however, that the U.S. Constitution derives in form and content from a tradition of American colonial charters and documents of political foundation that began a century and a half prior to 1787. Lutz builds his argument around a close textual analysis of such documents as the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Rhode Island Charter of 1663, the first state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. *He shows that American constitutionalism developed to a considerable degree from radical Protestant interpretations of the Judeo-Christian tradition that were first secularized into political compacts and then incorporated into constitutions and bills of rights. *Over time, appropriations that enriched this tradition included aspects of English common law and English Whig theory. Lutz also looks at the influence of Montesquieu, Locke, Blackstone, and Hume. In addition, he details the importance of Americans' experiences and history to the political theory that produced the Constitution. *By placing the Constitution within this broader constitutional system, Lutz demonstrates that the document is the culmination of a long process and must be understood within this context.* His argument also offers a fresh view of current controversies over the Framers' intentions, the place of religion in American politics, and citizens' continuing role in the development of the constitutional tradition.



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Constitution-Faith-Founding-Fathers/dp/0801052319]Amazon.com: Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (9780801052316): John Eidsmoe: Books[/ame]


> John Eidsmoe rights the faulty historical record and correctly brings us back to the roots that made America great . . . *clearly demonstrates that our constitutional liberties are a direct result of our founders' moral and religious convictions which were based on a belief in a God who created heaven and earth as well as on the fixed and unchanging absolutes of God's Word.* Robert Skolrood, National Legal Foundation Legally accurate yet easy to understand . . . presents the truth about our founding fathers and their strong Christian roots that is missing from most textbooks and reference books written during the last fifty years. Every student of American history, ministers, and public speakers should read this book. . . . Tim LaHaye, Family Life Seminars Combines an interesting presentation with fine scholarship and a critical m message . . . should be read by anyone interested in the Constitution or Christianity. Wendell Bird, constitutional attorney Knowledge of our Christian heritage is an important weapon in the current fight for religious freedom in America. *Eidsmoe has given us an entire arsenal of new and important evidence substantiating the Christian roots of our government.* Mike Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association Balanced and lucid . . . *clearly documents the pervasive Christian influence on the lives and thought of those who wrote our Constitution*. I recommend it highly as a corrective to the almost totally secular portrayal of the Constitution found in so many textbooks today. Paul Vitz, author John Eidsmoe holds five degrees in law, theology, and political science. He currently serves as professor of constitutional law and related subjects at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University, Montgomery, Alabama, where he received the Outstanding Professor Award in 1993. A constitutional attorney and lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, he has also taught church history and other subjects in various seminaries and has produced a twelve-part video series titled The Institute on the Constitution. His other books include The Christian Legal Advisor, God and Caesar, and Columbus and Cortez.


__________________


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You are obviously too young to remember that back then, there was no moment of silence....we had to say a prayer...out loud...a christian prayer.

As for a moment of silence in a PUBLIC school....why?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



You want to force god on us, don't you?  Maybe god/goddess is trying to tell YOU something.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
> ...



And yet, even though most State Constitutions prominantly mentioned God, and had religious tests for office, the Federal Constitution deliberately did not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



She dared to speak out.  She didn't know her place.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
> ...



The framers left it out because it was good for our country.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Some Christians are trying to force God into American history.  They completely forget the Constitutioni reads "We the people'.  We are a secular country by law.  It's hard to tell because the Christian right has practically made Christianity a litmus test for public office.


----------



## bruzz (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> bruzz said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



THAT is why we need speration of church and state. Religion can be used as a tool. What good comes out of this, of "christians" ruling the world for god?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

pinqy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You are assuming that if something does not contain God or Christ in its words that it cannot have Christian principles in it.  This is not the case.  Take for example C.S. Lewis&#8217; The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.  It does not mention Christ at all, yet there are definitely Christian principles in it.

I am not trying to say we are a Christian nation.  A &#8220;Christian nation&#8221; has too many meanings/definitions that can be applied to it.

I would like for people to accept that Christianity played a significant role in the founding of America, by at least reading through the evidence contained in the books I provided.  What do you or SkyDancer have to fear in agreeing to that?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

bruzz said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > bruzz said:
> ...



"You and I can bring the rule and reign
of the cross to America." 

Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of the 2,000-member Hope Christian Church in Bowie, Maryland


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

pinqy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The operative word is "had"....not anymore.   It's unconstitutional.   (let us remember that before the 14th Amendment, state governments did not have to honor the same rights the federal government had to honor thru the Bill of Rights, etc.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



so

according to the conservatively correct

she HAD FREEDOM of SPEECH

her mistake was in USING it!.


she should have just accepted her "god-given" right to FREE SPEECH and  then just SHUT UP about it!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a Christ analogy.   What is the Christ analogy in the Constitution?   I have a copy available...please point it out.   TIA.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I'd really like froggy to answer my question, guys.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...



I'm not claiming a Christ analogy in the Constitution.  My point was to provide an example of something that does not contain God or Christ in its words yet still has religions/Christian principles in it.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I disagree with you, it was not more than likely Deist in Nature, it was writen by Christians for Christians of the time that they lived in.

This does not mean it was founded upon the sole religion of christianity, just that it was influenced by how the Majority of Christians at the time felt and thought.  There were many many signers of the constitution, the MAJORITY of whom were Christian and it was ratified by all the States with 2/3's vote of all of their gvt representatives, of which the mega majority were Christians.....

Do you really believe that these MAJORITY of believers in Christianity would have accepted the Constitution if it did not represent what they believed a govt should represent or if it interfered with their beliefs?  

I don't.

and I do not have a problem with this, as you do.

And for goodness sakes, differences in opinion, WOULD NEVER make me lose a friendship or even dislike someone....I believe God gave us all freewill, and that includes each of us, having their own opinion on things...even if their opinions are wrong!  

hugs and kisses dear!

care


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




"I would like for people to accept that Christianity played a significant role in the founding of America, by at least reading through the evidence contained in the books I provided.  "


well

our founding fathers accept slavery
as does the christan god all through the bible

and women were 2nd class citizens with fewer rights
which was also in accordance with the lunacies of the christian god

so
I guess you make a  good point

christianity (pro-slavery, anti-women) definitely played a role in the founding of America


----------



## Care4all (Jul 9, 2010)

You seem to think that Christians should be sinless....?

Well, maybe they SHOULD be sinless, especially if they follow Christ who was sinless.....but this is clearly not the case...Christians have had many, many, many faults over the centuries of which there is no denying.  I don't think any Christian can deny such.

but that is not at issue here, whether christians were perfect or not.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Not every kid was sentenced to catholic school.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



"And for goodness sakes, differences in opinion, WOULD NEVER make me lose a friendship or even dislike someone.."


I do that all the time

once
a long time ago
I had a really good friend

one day he said "the atlantic is a greater ocean than the pacific"

well
that was IT for him!


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, I'm just instructed to tell of God. What you do is your decision.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




Yeah, and liberals are the reason Jews were slaughtered.

You are just so pathetic.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



The horror of having to be silent. It is cruel and unusual.


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So you saying by law we have to be secular, not christian. by your own admission you want our country to be secularized.

 Secularisation is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward non-religious (or "irreligious") values and secular institutions.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




give THEM (conservative evangelical christians) an inch

then they want ANOTHER inch

and another

until they have it all....

for example:

back after the civil war when they (con christians) wanted to put "in god we trust" on all of our money they INSISTED that it "doesn't mean anything..." and that they would NEVER use it to try and gain further foothold.....


however

today

MILLIONS of these con christians use "in god we trust" on our currency as EVIDENCE
that our "founding fathers intended for America to be a CHRISTIAN NATION"
(even though our fOUNDING fathers had nothing to do with it)

when asked...
"but...what does 'America is a christan nation' actually mean they will (lie) and reply ...."golly..it doesn't mean anything!"

however
should we all ever AGREE that 'America is a christian nation' they will THEN start to explain the TRUE MEANING of that phrase...

'since we ALL AGREE that America IS a christian nation then THAT means that
christians have special rights
and the christian bible should be TAUGHT in schools
and christian morals should be taught to ALL of our children
and homosexuality IS a crime
and atheists are NOT citizens.....'


give them an inch....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

You're confusing us with the liberal fascists.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...





"So you saying by law we have to be secular, not christian. by your own admission you want our country to be secularized."


do ALL conservative christians immediately leap to such erroeous and extreme conclusions?

by law our country should be secular

by law ALL citizens have a righ tto worship any god/religion they choose to believe in

by law NOBODY should be forced to accept or practice ANY religion

by law all of our laws should be based on reason and logic and NOT religious mumbo jumbo

yes
the COUNTRY should be secular
while each person can be whatever religion they want


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



"Yeah, and liberals are the reason Jews were slaughtered."

you are constantly 2 things on this board

1. a very annoying little pissant, vulgar, crude and ignorant

2. completely wrong about everything you believe

obviously liberals did NOT slaughter jews so I need not even addres that insane point

and as for pathetic

even for a 12 year old (or are you 13 yet?)
you are a pretty pathetic specimen of conservativism

you BELIEVE things that we constantly prove to you to be false

yet

you continue to beleve them!

you argue about things that you obviously don't know anything about

you use swears and insults and vulgarism

perhaps

when you turn 20 or 21 you might become a more mature and civilized person

but I doubt it


----------



## froggy (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Did you not read the meaning of Secularisation?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

No, by law our country should NOT be secular. By law, our country is accepting of ALL religions, and the profession of faith in ANY circle is protected.

Stop trying to dismantle the US. If you want a secular nation, move to China (well, the China of 30 years, before they started to model themselves after us). Or Cuba.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Lol.
Not only do your debating skills suck, you are also dishonest.
Carry on with your nonsensical rants now.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

For dikrules:

"Off the top of my head, in the first six months of Obama&#8217;s presidency we&#8217;ve seen corporatism  and &#8220;state capitalism&#8221;   run amok, in the government takeover of two car companies and numerous banks. Labor unions have become increasingly indistinguishable from the government and the party that controls it. Herbert Croly  and the Progressives have once again been rehabilitated as founding fathers of the New Age. The entire liberal intellectual class is convinced that this the time for a new New Deal. Critics of statism are vilified by liberal elites as racists and fascists. (And those who refuse to get with the Gorian program are guilty of &#8220;treason against the planet&#8220. When out of power, liberals lionized free speech and celebrated dissent as the highest form of patriotism. Now, they label dissent &#8220;un-American&#8221; and the president insists he doesn&#8217;t want to hear a lot of talking from anyone who disagrees with him. While the stench of eugenics and euthanasia do not quite sting the nostrils yet, the odor is detectable and the  liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others has been re-exposed.

Indeed, our own messianic president, who insists that we can create a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, also apparently believes that &#8220;we are God&#8217;s partners in matters of life and death&#8221; and that religious organizations that are true to their calling should rally behind a united front to expand the scope and role of government.  When the head of state says such things, it is hard not to be reminded of the Progressive concept of the God State, a major theme of Liberal Fascism. The &#8220;State is the actually existing,  realized moral life . . . The divine idea as it exists on earth,&#8221; Hegel declared in The Philosophy of History. The State, according to Hegel, was the &#8220;march of God on earth.&#8221; The progressives agreed.  Richard Ely, the founding father of progressive economics, proclaimed &#8220;God works through the State in carrying out His purposes more universally than through any other institution.&#8221;
Liberal Fascism - National Review Online

Just because I think it's interesting. 

Here, let's find some more:

"According to Goldberg, fascism in America predated the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. He believes that Woodrow Wilson turned the United States into a &#8220;fascist country, albeit temporarily&#8221; during World War I. Americans in 1917 were reluctant to join the slaughter in Europe. Their nation hadn&#8217;t been attacked; there was no defining event &#8212; a Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor &#8212; to rally public support. So Wilson formed the country&#8217;s first propaganda ministry, the Committee on Public Information, to teach people what they were up against. The devil became German militarism &#8212; the merciless Hun &#8212; and Americans were encouraged to lash out at those of German ancestry inside the United States. Vigilante groups arose to mete out justice and spy on fellow citizens. Congress passed draconian laws banning &#8220;abusive&#8221; and &#8220;disloyal&#8221; language against the government and its officials. The Post Office revoked the mailing privileges of hundreds of antiwar publications, effectively shutting them down. Rarely if ever in American history has dissent been so effectively stifled.

At the same time, Wilson formed numerous boards to regulate everything from the production of artillery pieces to the price of a lamb chop. The result, Goldberg argues, was the birth of a socialist dictatorship that &#8220;whipped, cajoled and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state.&#8221; Though partly dismantled after the war, this model, we are told, became the blueprint for Franklin Roosevelt&#8217;s New Deal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=1

"As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer."
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society&#8217;s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the &#8220;national interest&#8221;&#8212;that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions."
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

More on fascism..and who does this remind you of?

"Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole intowhich individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. 

A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. 

Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche , Thomas Carlyle , and Richard Wagner , is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will." 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/fascism.aspx


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



I didn't go to Catholic school...it was a public school.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

froggy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



So, you really have no problem with us not wanting any of your god stuff in the public, tax-paid venue.   Good.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

Bod, our founding fathers fought and died so we would have the right to be openly religious.

That was the whole fucking point. How hard is it to understand? When did Americans start thinking freedom of religion means no religion in public places?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Actually, it was founded on Liberal principles.


Ask a librarian about Locke, my retarded pet.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> More on fascism..and who does this remind you of?
> 
> "Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole intowhich individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
> 
> ...





who does it remind me of?

well

rush limbaugh
ann coulter
bill oreilly
glenn beck
michelle malkin
sean hannity
MOST of fox news
and...you


twas just thinking back to the days of aryan facist nazi germany

when the aryan nazi ELITISTS were running around declaring their "enemies"
(defined as liberals, intellectuals, communists, blacks, minorities)
were "intellectually inferior, stupid, subhumans" who were "trying to destroy germany and german traditional family values..."

now 
who does that remind me of......

rush limbaugh
ann coulter
bill oreilly
glenn beck
michelle malkin
sean hannity
MOST of fox news
and...you


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

pinqy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




Religious tests are illegal and always have been


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


She left the kitchen?

She didn't put shoes on, too, did she?


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod, our founding fathers fought and died so we would have the right to be openly religious.
> 
> That was the whole fucking point. How hard is it to understand? When did Americans start thinking freedom of religion means no religion in public places?



"our founding fathers fought and died so we would have the right to be openly religious."

wrong

they fought so we could have the freedom topractice ANY religion or even NO religion

are you saying otherwise?

are you saying American citizens do NOT have the right to not worship YOR god?
are you saying they do not have the right to not worship ANY god?

"That was the whole fucking point. How hard is it to understand? When did Americans start thinking freedom of religion means no religion in public places"

no FORCED religion

you can NOT force people to accept YOUR religion

anything woud make you what we already kow you are

a theocratic facist nincompoop


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > More on fascism..and who does this remind you of?
> ...



Just when I thought you couldn't be any more obtuse.

Maybe you should read the material again, genius. Those guys are journalists. Who promote freedom, I might add.

Of course you want to shut them up. You're a fascist.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, by law our country should NOT be secular. By law, our country is accepting of ALL religions, and the profession of faith in ANY circle is protected.
> 
> Stop trying to dismantle the US. If you want a secular nation, move to China (well, the China of 30 years, before they started to model themselves after us). Or Cuba.




You're an idiot, but we already knew that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bod, our founding fathers fought and died so we would have the right to be openly religious.
> ...




I don't promote theocracy. You guys are the retards who apparently don't know what the word means.

Our founding fathers supported freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Period. You can play with that all you want, but you're shitting on America when you do it. They believed anyone should be able to openly profess their religion, and should never, EVER be shut down or persecuted because of it. They should never be prevented from seeking office based on their religious beliefs, they should never suffer financially because of it.

People like you and Sky are trying to turn us into exactly the sort of country they tried very, very hard to ensure we would never be. Congratulations, fascist.

You'll note at least I know how to spell fascist.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

And it's typical of fascism that you pretend I'm doing something I'm not. You claim that defending freedom of speech and freedom of religion is "theocracy" and should be stopped. It's reminiscent of claiming that Jews wanted to kill German babies and take money. A means to an end. And the end is to eradicate religious freedom, freedom of speech, and establish fascism.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

> Our founding fathers supported freedom of religion and freedom



Exactly. And to safeguard it, they formed a secular system


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And it's typical of fascism that you pretend I'm doing something I'm not. You claim that defending freedom of speech and freedom of religion is "theocracy" and should be stopped. It's reminiscent of claiming that Jews wanted to kill German babies and take money. A means to an end. And the end is to eradicate religious freedom, freedom of speech, and establish fascism.






We'll add that to the list of your gems.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

Puke, when we want your opinion, we'll tell it to you.

Until then, please refrain from inane chatter.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

How many threads have you made a fool of yourself in today? Three?

Don't you get tired of playing the role if the court buffoon?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> "I would like for people to accept that Christianity played a significant role in the founding of America, by at least reading through the evidence contained in the books I provided.  "
> 
> well
> 
> our founding fathers accept slavery



Where is your proof that all the founders accepted slavery? I think many of them understood that freeing the slaves was not an overnight process.  They were smart about it.  What you are suggesting is similar to someone saying that Obama does not think we should have a universal health care system because he has not implemented it yet.  Obama is smart enough to know that is not going to happen overnight either.  Oliver Ellsworth wrote:


> All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported. [The Landholder, December 10, 1787]



They had to have a period where slaves were stopped from being imported.  Henry Laurens said:


> I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule. [Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.]



Many of the founders gave slaves their freedom once America was distanced from Great Britain.  There are many other quotes I could provide which show they were against slavery.

Keep in mind the founding fathers did not establish slavery.  They had many obstacles to actually implement the words all men are created equal.  John Jay said this:


> Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. [John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1891), Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788.]





rikules said:


> as does the christan god all through the bible



Again, where is your proof?



rikules said:


> and women were 2nd class citizens with fewer rights



Actually, women were, in general, treated with greater respect than they are today.  It is no news to me that Christians used the Bible to suppress women.  Doing this was not just carried out by only religious people, though.



rikules said:


> which was also in accordance with the lunacies of the christian god



The lunacy is from those who take everything in the Bible literally and pretend there are no problems with misinterpretations in the Bible.  Jefferson and many of the founders understood that man had somewhat corrupted the Bible for their own personal and political gains.  The misuse and misinterpretation of scripture to promote ones agenda/power/etc. has always occurred.

Please provide proof that the Bible says we should treat women as 2nd class citizens.



rikules said:


> so
> I guess you make a  good point
> 
> christianity (pro-slavery, anti-women) definitely played a role in the founding of America



As I said, misuse of scripture has always happened.  Many of the founders saw this and wanted to return to the basic teachings of Jesus.

You have not provided anything to back up your statements; I ask that you do so.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Where is your proof that all the founders accepted slavery?



How 'bout the fact that many of them had slaves? 


> Many of the founders gave slaves  their freedom once America was distanced from Great Britain.



And many of the most worshiped didn't even free their own children.



> Please provide proof that the Bible says we should treat women as 2nd  class citizens.



Let's start with Timothy...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You calling me a fascist?  Why?  I point out the founders wrote a secular document so that we  could all enjoy religious freedom.  Nothing fascist in that.  Now there are Christian Domionists who want the US to be a theocracy.  We can both agree they are misguided.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> How 'bout the fact that many of them had slaves?



Note the word "all" in my question.  I judge them based on the actions they took to first form a free nation, then work on slaves' freedom.  Their words and actions showed that many of them were against slavery.  Had you or I grown up during their time, what would we do?



JBeukema said:


> And many of the most worshiped didn't even free their own children.



"many of the most worshiped"?



JBeukema said:


> Let's start with Timothy...



Yes, I'm aware of this, however, context matters since this was a letter to Timothy.  It has already been shown what the context is surrounding this scripture.  This book did a good job of researching it:[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Suffer-Not-Woman-Rethinking-Evidence/dp/0801052505]Amazon.com: I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence&#8230;[/ame]

This person did a good job of summarizing it (a reviewer from the link):


> The study this book takes on is one of the most difficult in Scripture regarding gender and one of the most difficult for most churches in general. All of the restrictions placed on women in most Christian churches originate from just two places in the NT: 1 Cor 14:32-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. Those two sets of verses have resulted in a theological position over 1900 years that has restricted women to the point that in some "ultra-conservative churches" they cannot even read aloud from the Bible in a class room setting in the presence of men. Understanding the issues and problems along with a basic understanding of Greek word useage, the Roman/Greek customs and laws, and the outside influences on the Christian churches of the 1st Century is an absolute necessity in order to be 1st Century Christians in a 21st Century environment. It is a diffucult undertaking to say the least. The Kroeger's have done an excellent job in this book of researching the background of 1 Tim 2:11-15 and have shown that there are many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and a general lack of knowledge and historical perspective regarding the Greek language of 2000 years ago and how it changed over time, the customs of the Roman empire at the time the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy, *the problems that the church in Ephesus was facing with pagan religions and Gnosticism taking hold of the Christians at Ephesus, and why the women were more prone to be misled by Gnostic beliefs and then try to pass on those erroneous beliefs. Those women had to be silenced for a time to prevent the church in Ephesus from falling totally into the Gnostic beliefs that were prevelent in Ephesus at the time. *



On edit: in other words, there was a group of women creating dissent in Ephesus and that is who is being referred to in the scripture.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> "many of the most worshiped"?




Statue / monument of George Washington in Washington DC by Sculptor Horatio Greenough

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The depict him becoming a god. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.

Doesn't get too much more explicit than that.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > "I would like for people to accept that Christianity played a significant role in the founding of America, by at least reading through the evidence contained in the books I provided.  "
> ...





oh my god


is EVERY conservative completely ignorant of reality?

is there even 1 conservative that doesn't believe absolute lies and nonsense?

me: "our founding fathers accept slavery"

amazingly stupid and hatefilled conservative:
"Where is your proof that all the founders accepted slavery? 


the proof, you amazingly stupid conservative, is in the fact that when our founding fathers created the good old USA slavery EXISTED!

there was NO QUESTION about it.



me again: "as does the christan god all through the bible"

moronicon response: "Again, where is your proof?"

leviticus:

thou can have slaves
thou can beat thy slaves almost to death
thou can sell thy daughter into slavery
thou can have sex with thy slaves


it's in leviticus.

what I want to know is; how can you believe so strongly in a bible when you don't even know what is in it?

"The lunacy is from those who take everything in the Bible literally and pretend there are no problems with misinterpretations in the Bible. "

interesting point

makes me wonder

have we misinterpreted gods stance on sex outside of marriage?
have we misinterpreted gods stance on homosexuals?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > "many of the most worshiped"?
> ...



I get what you were saying now.  Yes, that is over the top.  However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery.  In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery.  He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery


> George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.
> ...
> George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, *Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.*
> 
> ...



As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable.  How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Puke, when we want your opinion, we'll tell it to you.
> 
> Until then, please refrain from inane chatter.



the other day you said obama should be jailed for his crimes....

you failed,of course, to list any actual crimes...

yet
I have no doubt that you steadfastly believce he should be jailed

so
I ask
should I be jailed?

should ALL liberals be jailed?

how many liberals and democrats  do youthink should be jailed?

and
since jailing them costs a lot of money
do you really want to have to pay for their incarceration?

is that fair to you?


wouldn't it be cheaper just to round them all up and deport them?
or just take them out back and shoot them?

1 bullet would cost a lot less than incarcerating them

or flying them to third world countries for deportation...

and
after all
woudn't it be FUN for you to just kill them?

after all
conservative christian repubclian lt gen james mattis said
"it's FUN to kill your enemies"

I imagine you agree with that


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Read through my recent discussion here with Jbeukama.  Perhaps then you'll understand my position more fully.  Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions.  I try to do research into scripture to find the actual context and meaning. It helps greatly to dispel the incorrect doctrines some have propagated in Christianity.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And it's typical of fascism that you pretend I'm doing something I'm not. You claim that defending freedom of speech and freedom of religion is "theocracy" and should be stopped. It's reminiscent of claiming that Jews wanted to kill German babies and take money. A means to an end. And the end is to eradicate religious freedom, freedom of speech, and establish fascism.



"And it's typical of fascism that you pretend I'm doing something I'm not."


well
since you keep claiming we are doing things that we are NOT doing...

you must be a fascist


like the following sentence;

"You claim that defending freedom of speech and freedom of religion is "theocracy" and should be stopped"

no
I never claimed that
NONE fo the sane and rational people on this board have claimed that

we have claimed that your insistance that America IS a christian nation
is tantamount to wanting a theocracy.

and it is.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




you wanted evidence that god condoned slavery

I provided it

it's in leviticus

stop denying reality


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



I respect you for that.  What do you think of the dominionists?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



By the time of the Constitution, we had been an independent nation for quite a few years....but your excuse for putting off freedom to a few million people is an interesting take on procrastination.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, by law our country should NOT be secular. By law, our country is accepting of ALL religions, and the profession of faith in ANY circle is protected.
> 
> Stop trying to dismantle the US. If you want a secular nation, move to China (well, the China of 30 years, before they started to model themselves after us). Or Cuba.



by law?

by law we MUST be religious?

what lunconstitutional aw would that be?


"Stop trying to dismantle the US."

we are not trying to dismantle the US
we are trying to keep lunatics like you from ESTABLISHING LAWS mandating that we MUST adhere to YOUR religious beliefs


" If you want a secular nation, move to China (well, the China of 30 years, before they started to model themselves after us). Or Cuba.[/QUOTE]

nope.
I like it here
where we have the constitutional right to NOT have religion imposed on us

now
if you really want to live in a country that MANDATES religion by LAW then I recommend one of the islamic middle eastern countries

you'd like it

they get to kill people with the wrong opinions

you'd enjoy that


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



moore conservative irony

imagine telling conservatives that they'll just have to wait awhile for their rights and freedoms.....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...


How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



conservatives are very selfish people

they don't really care about YOUR freedom

they only care about their OWN.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.  That's exactly what the Consitution does.  I see no harm in that.

Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



bourgeois liberalism


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



You need to understand that slavery in the Old Testament is different than what we think of slavery today, so once again the context matters.  Slavery was based on social status and was not race-based.  What the Bible does not do , which I think is what most people misinterpret as condoning slavery, is stand out openly against slavery.  There is, however, one case of race-based slavery that  God shows his displeasure for and that is regarding the story of the Hebrews that were enslaved by Egypt.

I tend to be skeptical of some things the Bible says, because I understand man has changed it over the years.  I also know that we do not have all of the writings of the prophets over the years, nor all the words of Jesus in the Bible which could clarify things.

The other huge issue is that there are so many interpretations/versions of the Bible that can totally distort the meaning of scriptures.

The Jews were known for creating a rule/law for everything which I believe were not God-given (how many steps you can take on Sunday,et.) so while there may have been some laws in there that talk about what to do with slaves, I take it with a grain of salt.

A good test of whether something in the Old Testament is in accordance with Christian teachings is to turn to what Christ said in the New Testament.  I would think he would be very much against slaves, as we define that word today.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Thanks.  I do not know much of them.  If I were you I would not worry about them.  Some people take Bible's call to "preach to all the world" too far.  I disagree with their view.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I trust Washington's judgment on what would have tore the nation apart at the time.  The nation had to be stable before it could work out such an issue that would tear it apart.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Thanks.  I'm glad you disagree with the dominionists.  You should study them though.  Otherwise they grow in power silently.

http://wikibin.org/articles/list-of-people-and-organizations-associated-with-dominionism.html


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




"You need to understand that slavery in the Old Testament is different than what we think of slavery today, so once again the context matters."

really?

god specifically says you can BEAT your slaves (almost to death, he says)
god says slaves are YOUR PROPERTY to do with as you please
god says you can sell your OWN DAUGHTER into slavery (well, that is different from conservative christian southern white slavery)
god says you can TAKE slaves from the nations around you
god says you can have sex with your slaves (what? sex with a person you are NOT married to?@!?!?!?!?)


" Slavery was based on social status and was not race-based."

so THAT form of slavery is ok as long as it isn't racial based?

do you have a daughter?

is she cute?


cuz...i've got a little money....

and god says it's a-ok with him....


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point.  Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment.  He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart.  He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




I see

so 1 christian knew that ALL of the REST of the christians would TEAR THE COUNTRY APART if their GOD-GIVEN rigth to enslave blacks was taken from them.

interesting


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Is a 'completely stable nation' even a possibility so long as people are individuals?


Even today we've got a bunch of wingnuts talking about a revolution because we have a black president, a bunch of ******* talking about killing whitey to get freedom they already have, far-leftistists talking about nationalizing the economy...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?



When you understand their predicament more fully, it is not so hilarious and actually makes sense.  Phasing out anything that has been so entrenched in society is always difficult.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



When did I ever say 1 Christian?  Do you consistently twist other's words?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?
> ...




We hold these truths to self-evident, that all White landed gentry are created equal in their prosperous birth, and are bestowed by their wealth with certain inalienable privileges of prestige, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and chattel...


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?
> ...



I am always appalled that so many conservatives wil

1. WHINE and COMPLAIN about LIBERALS TRYING TO ENSLAVE them

and then turn around and calmly, rationally, expain to us how

a. christian slavery (as in the bible) really wasn't so bad
and
b.  ending slavery for blacks coudn't be done overnight....it took a LOOOOOOOOOONG time to convince conservative christians that slavery (the kind that god condones in the bible) probably wasn't such a good thing


look
when we liberals try to enslave you
trust us
it will be MUCH MORE like the christian version of slavery

so
it won't be that bad


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Is a 'completely stable nation' even a possibility so long as people are individuals?
> 
> 
> Even today we've got a bunch of wingnuts talking about a revolution because we have a black president, a bunch of ******* talking about killing whitey to get freedom they already have, far-leftistists talking about nationalizing the economy...



We could argue what is meant by "completely stable nation".  What I meant was that change of any kind takes time and the country was still going through significant changes.  Yes, the Constitution was there, however, a piece of paper does not change everyone's thinking overnight.  People almost always take some time to change and adapt.

Yes, we have winguts on both sides today.  Those talking about a revolution because of a black president have zero chance of making headway in my view.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



No
I consistantly define what you really mean

you mentioned washington....
that is ONE christian

perhaps there were 3 or 4 like him

but, as you yourself pointed out...he/they could do NOTHING to end slavery because there were TOO MANY WHITE CHRISTIANS who believe in slavery as a  god-given right


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Where oh where did Washington say that slavery needed to be abolished?  BTW, Washington did not do his wife any favors with his will....did you know after he died, she locked herself in the attic bedroom for a few days because there were a few hundred slaves with vested interest in her falling down some stairs.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Please explain how you would have done things differently back then.  After that, please explain how you would know better than they on how to abolish slavery.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You don't think socialism is a liberal philosophy?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery


> George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, *Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation. As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart.*


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Easy to say....third person...where are HIS comments on this?   I've been to Mount Vernon, he had about 300 slaves and profitted quite well from them.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Simple. State that, as all are created equal, no man is to own another as property. 

If they believed a word of their own rhetoric in the DoI, this is what they would have done.

But the sons of Cane aren't people, I guess.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




wow....


First off, 'socialism' is not a singular ideology. Secondly, socialist ideologies, which arose rimaily out of communist thought are at odds with Liberalism.


Go, read.

Marxists Internet Archive Library, Complete Index of Writers

Socialism is 'liberal' only with a small l and only in the sense of social liberalism- it can be very _illiberal_ in economic terms. True Liberalism (classical doctrine, AKA bourgeois liberalism) holds anathema the economic aims of socialist ideologies. 


Just look at the discussions/arguments between myself (a moderal social democrat) and the Liberals on this very forum.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I have not complained that liberals are trying to enslave me, so this is a deflection on your part.

I have not said that "Christian slavery" is not so bad.  I said it was different than the way we define it today and that I questioned things the Bible says about it.  Regardless, nowhere does the Bible actually condone slavery. Please provide chapter and verse for your proof.

If you think slavery could have been abolished overnight, it is you who needs to face reality.  History has already proven there were enough people, including Christians, to abolish it.  So, broad brushing all Christians on this matter is being dishonest.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

> .  History has already proven there were enough people, including  Christians, to abolish it.


Then why didn't they?

All men are created equal and endowed..


Guess ******* weren't men- just chattel.

Way to go, FF- Lockean Liberalism is fucking awesome!


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Not to mention totalitarian socialism...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Here you go, from the Library of Congress:George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799 - Collection Connections - For Teachers (Library of Congress)


> . . .I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.



I've been to Mount Vernon as well.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > .  History has already proven there were enough people, including  Christians, to abolish it.
> 
> 
> Then why didn't they?
> ...



Are you saying slavery was not abolished?


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



You did not explain how you would know better than they on what to do.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

wait changing the nation through ' sure, and imperceptible degrees.'?








HE WAS A PROGRESSIVE COMMUNIST KENYAN NAZI!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng9uRpt94Pk]YouTube - Glenn Beck Misspells "Evolution"[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




Did you not read


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > .  History has already proven there were enough people, including  Christians, to abolish it.
> ...



Not by any of them.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



So, you had all the information they did and knew how things would affect the country at the time?  Sorry, I'm going to trust their judgment over yours.

Back to my example, if Obama believes his rhetoric about the need to implement a universal health care system, why hasn't he?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Right, so rather than address the fact that they had slaves and the fact that the bible condones slavery and the fact that his nation was founded as a secular nation, you want to talk about how Obama can't pass legislation without congress


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Right, so rather than address the fact that they had slaves and the fact that the bible condones slavery and the fact that his nation was founded as a secular nation, you want to talk about how Obama can't pass legislation without congress



Now you are deflecting.  I used Obama as an example. He knows he cannot implement a universal health care system because it takes time. He is smart.  So were the founders.

Show me exactly where the Bible condones slavery.  Chapter and verse, describe the context first.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Right, so rather than address the fact that they had slaves and the fact that the bible condones slavery and the fact that his nation was founded as a secular nation, you want to talk about how Obama can't pass legislation without congress
> ...



 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)


    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Right, so rather than address the fact that they had slaves and the fact that the bible condones slavery and the fact that his nation was founded as a secular nation, you want to talk about how Obama can't pass legislation without congress
> ...




Obama has to work within the confines of the law (you know Congress passing new laws and such).

The FF wrote the law.

Sorry, my littler slavery apologist, but you fail again.

And if you want to pretend the bible doesn't permit slavery, then nobdy's going to take you seriously. That's been discovered time and again.

here


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> To claim Jesus was not divine if the to throw away the entire premise of Christianity- that the LORD payed for your sins by sending his only begotten son, who was of himself (the concept of divinity multiplicity goes back to Genesis)to live a sinless life and pay what he owed Satan in accordance with the greatest bet ever made. This carries over into Revelation, where it is made clear to those familiar with Jewish property laws that the debt is payed, yet God has not yet claimed back the Earth, though it is his to rule and he holds the deed to creation, sealed with seven seals.
> 
> If Jesus was not divine, he cannot be sinless, since we are born imperfect and blighted by the stains of the world's fallen state (see: original sin and 'noone is without sin'). Hence he cannot pay the the price (the life of a sinless man) he payed upon the cross ('it is finished'). Hence salvation is not possible through Jesus- unless h was divine, starting with a clean slate upon his birth, and lived a sinless life.



I am amazed. I thought most Christians were really bad at articulating their theology, but you have surely taken the cake with this post. You know less about Jesus work than most people, I would suggest you do a really good study of Romans, particularly chapters 4 and 5, before you try to insist that the only way Christianity works is if Jesus is divine. Even the Catholics do a better job than you do with the Immaculate Conception.

And trust me on this one, there are plenty of Jewish scholars who would scoff at your contention that divine multiplicity, whatever it is you mean by that, goes back to Genesis.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 9, 2010)

> there are plenty of Jewish scholars who would scoff at your contention  that divine multiplicity, whatever it is you mean by that, goes back to  Genesis.




Let us make man in our image...


lest he become like us, knowing good and evil...


See also 'The angel of the Lord' (as opposed to 'an angel...', which can be any of god's messenger's)


I've explained this all before. The immaculate birth was needed because if he was born of a man he'd have inherited the stain of sin and Man's fallen state, being imperfect and incapable of living a sinless life and paying the price he would come to pay upon the cross.


Simple stuff, man.

-The Reverend James Teunis Beukema


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> NOT TRUE.  there are several religions that claim to be Christian that do not view Christ as God, they view him as the Son of God, or as the messiah, but not God himself.....Unitarians, Mormons as 2 examples...


All cults and spinoffs.


And the bible warns of us false prophets and churches- Lucifer's deceptions. The broad and winding road to damnation.[/quote]

Yet the concept that Jesus is God was roundly denounced by the early church fathers. I would say that that indicates that the belief that Jesus is God the Father is the a cult spinoff of the early church that too over Christendom, just like Jefferson said it did.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

The Despoiling Of America


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



The New Language Translation is not the best.  I prefer the King James Translation as it tends to stick closer to the actual meaning.

Now, can you explain the context of what a slave was back then?  It was quite different than how we view it today.

Also, like I said I am skeptical of some of these things in the Bible, since I know man has changed some of it.  If Christianity really teaches that slaves as we define them were OK, then the "do unto others" principle is not true.  I don't believe that and I question anything that goes against what Christ taught.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



A slave is a slave.  Either you buy the Bible scripture or you don't.    Luckily, it's not my book.  I don't blame you.  I'd claim it was a poor translation too.  Not fun to have to justify these passages.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Constitution is a godless document.  Jesus, the Bible and God are absent in it.  The Constitution is the document on which our country is founded.



If that were true we would celebrate 17 Sep 1787 as the birth of our nation, not 4 Jul 1776. That Articles of Confederation clearly called the new nation the United States of America, all the Constitution is is a redrafting of those articles to clear up problems that occurred as a result of them.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is a godless document.  Jesus, the Bible and God are absent in it.  The Constitution is the document on which our country is founded.
> ...



We weren't a country until we passed law the law of the land.  That began with the Constitution.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I am not trying to apologize for slavery.  What I am trying to do is understand those who knew that it should be abolished, their time, the circumstances, and the reasons they had for their actions.  Everything in context.  Wouldn't you agree that would be important?

I would prefer Washington had freed his slaves right away.  Unlike you, I do not judge him/them as harshly until I have tried to walk in their shoes.

Anything that teaches against what Christ taught is not what I believe.  If some use or did use the Bible to promote slavery I say that obviously goes against what Christ taught. Still there is no passage where the Bible openly condones the practice of slavery as we define it today.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



However, we set forth our intentions in the DECLARATION.

We can do this all year, Sky. You're wrong.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



We can debate.  That's what we do here.  We weren't technically a republic until we passed the Constitution.  You can say it's the Declaration of Independence but that just declared war.

In 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris which officially ended the American Revolution and Great Britain recognized the United States' independence.

The ratification of the Constitution was complete on March 4, 1789, when New Hampshire adopted it, officially the United States didn't become "united" until all states accepted the Constitution.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Definitions do change over time and the Old Testament was a long time ago.  For instance, the word awful used to mean "deserving of awe".  Quite different.
Here:Etymology- How Words Change Over Time

It is obviously a poor translation.  Also, like I said I question anything in the Bible that would contradict at least the basic teachings of Christ.  Some things were added/changed by man.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Hey.  It doesn't bother me.  You asked for some bible passages that related to slavery and I researched them.

You don't have to own the whole bible.   Just admit the Bible is written by men.  Otherwise one has to conclude that God condoned slavery.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



We aren't talking about when they were "united". We're talking about the foundations upon which the country was built.

It was a Christian foundation. Based on Christian principles. The founders SAID IT WAS. You look like an idiot flying in the face of that. Your "opinion" means less than nothing here, because your opinion does not determine the fact of the matter.

And the fact of the matter is that the country was founded on Christian principles, per the founding fathers and our foundation document, the Declaration of Independence, which set out the principles by which we intended to build a country upon. 

You're wrong. This isn't debate, you can't debate a fact. It's like saying "I think it's black" means that a white sheet MIGHT be black, just because you're blind.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jul 9, 2010)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...




I really get tired of the constant attempt to re-write our history.  Pretending our founders were men of "enlightment" whatever the hell you think that is supposed to mean and not men of religious faith is just one more pathetic attempt by the left to insist religion and religious faith played no real role in our founding.  WRONG BUBBA  There were more than 200 founders and there is a reason the left wants to pretend our nation was founded by just these two people and we can all ignore the other 198+, right?  

Our government is a secular one and you atheists seem to think that is synonymous with "atheist" where the religious beliefs of the founders were totally irrelevant -which is bullshit.  "Secular" ONLY means "not ruling in accordance with ecclesiastic law (church law)" -where violating church law was punished by the state.  In other words "secular" only means "not a theocracy" -and it NEVER means "atheist that rejects the very existence of God"  or a system that must pretend atheism is just as valuable to society as religious belief as the left insists we all pretend.  The founders rejected YOUR phony definition of secular right off the bat and fully intended to create a secular government that did not govern in accordance with ecclesiastic law but was founded on Christian principles.  A system that respected the religious beliefs of its citizens, would encourage its citizens to have religious beliefs -but without choosing a religion for them -as the best possible way to protect religion from the abuse and power of government.  

And THIS is where you leftwing atheist nutjobs got it all wrong.  Because YOU think religion is the evil thing here, you want to pretend our founders shared your opinions on that -which is a provably false assumption.  Our founders believed it was government that was the potential danger and evil thing and sought to limit ITS power, including any ability for government to take over and control religions and then use the religious beliefs of people to expand government's power and control over the people.   They hadn't been fighting against religion in the Revolutionary War.  The founders were NOT atheists, and they were nearly uniformly DEVOUT CHRISTIANS of one denomination or another.  

The founders initially wanted to write into the  Constitution that this nation existed for the benefit of Christians and Christianity and they initially sought ways to avoid extending the same religious protections in the Constitution to any non-Christian religion.   

The founders were OPEN about their intent to create a system of government that was BASED on Christian principles -but did not govern in accordance with ecclesiastical law because that would mean elevating one denomination over all the others because the ecclesiastic law differed from one denomination to the other.  So the founders rejected governance in accordance with any ecclesiastical law because they understood we couldn't have freedom of religion if people were governed by the church laws of one particular religion over all others. 

Our nation was founded on Christian PRINCIPLES -but if you haven't a clue what those are in the first place, that makes it a lot easier to try and deceive yourself that it wasn't.   But among those principles, but not limited to just these  - are the very basic Christian beliefs that rejects the notion man is nothing but a mere animal with no higher meaning to his existence than that, rejects the notion that man is the highest source of authority, the belief that God Himself is the source of our rights which means no man has the right to take those away and the utter rejection of forced conversion.  The founders wanted a system of government that held such principles at the fore -and believed they created just that.  BASED on Christian principles.  Not atheist ones, not Muslim ones, not Buddhist ones, not Wiccan ones.   

The problem for YOU and other leftist history revisionists is the FACT the founders left an immense wealth of their writings to explain exactly what they were thinking, why they chose the exact wording they did and what they drew upon for inspiration to create the system they did.   So the notion that YOUR uninformed opinion somehow carries greater weight than the body of their work they left for future generations that explains exactly what they were thinking at the time - is truly laughable. 

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

Benjamin Franklin proposed that the federal seal for the United States be that of Moses raising his hand and parting the Red Sea.  

* God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel*  Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787   Do I need to explain what Sacred Writings Ben meant?  So I guess he really was enlightened but probably not the way you wanted to pretend.

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

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

*God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?.." * Thomas Jefferson, taken from his writings and these words, his own, have been engraved on the wall of his tomb.
*
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. Weve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacityto sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.* James Madison, 1778 

James Madison is the man who came up with the idea of dividing our government into three branches and at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 where his model ended up being adopted, Madison explained his source of inspiration for it:  Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us. 

_*"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."*_   George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

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

*"Christianity is part of the common law" *  James Wilson, co-signer of the Constitution and Supreme Court Justice appointed by Washington

*"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"* John Adams and John Hancock, April 18, 1775

*"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."*  John Adams

* He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.*  Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

There are thousands and thousands of quotes from the words and writings of the founders about what role they believed Christianity had in our founding - but I think you get the idea.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

I would like Sky to tell us exactly what she thinks the founding fathers meant when they said they were building a country upon Christian principles.

Because obviously she thinks they were lying when they said that, and meant something completely different.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

And further, if the majority of our citizenry is Christian, how do we describe our citizenry? As non-Christian?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 9, 2010)

If the Constitution is so secular....why don't the secular progressives teach it in the public schools...? 
If they can teach homosexuality to 1st graders they should be able to teach them about the Constitution too...

Our country was extremely Christian in the beginning and pretty much so until the last 50 years or so...prayers were said in school along with the Pledge of Allegience....the 10 Commandments were hung on walls......people even brought their Bibles to school to actually read and study....and religion also flourished in the public square without any problem....and our country perked along just fine for years and years.....in the old days Americans were so damn religious old rikules would shit in his pants....

So what happened?   

Libruls moved further left and their secular progressive ideas started to push out religion claiming that we are a "secular" nation...totally disregarding the intent of our founders which was to limit the federal govt to secular matters, not limit the people....calling it "godless" they used the Constitution against us by twisting the law bit by bit to expunge every religious expression in the schools and the public square....totally ignoring the fact that the Constitution actually says we have the right to free religious expression...they've caused our schools and the public square to become exclusive instead of inclusive...they have totally marginalized religion...they are anti-God and are rabid anti-Christian haters...even those Deist founding fathers would turn in their graves... 

Secularism is as much a belief system or "religion" as is Christianity.....and these anti-Christian, anti-American Secularists are attempting to create their own form of "theocracy" in America by bastardizing our Constitution...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yes, thank you and I've seen the passages before.

I guess I would like for people to understand first of all that slavery in the OT is not the same as we define today.  Anytime you read the word "slave" in the Bible there is a certain perception that I believe can be incorrect. 

Second, I can think of only tow reasons for the inclusion of reference to slaves in the OT you gave:

The references were added by man.
Although God did not approve of slavery, He allowed them to practice it in the way they did for their day in the hopes that they would one day change their ways.  I do believe God is constantly trying to shape us into a better people.  For instance, when Christ came and fulfilled the law of Moses, he established a higher law and did away with things such as an "eye for an eye".


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm really sick and tired of Lefties today attacking Christians about slavery and women's rights (their two claims to fame)....it is so hypocritical...

If they were truly concerned about those two topics they would criticize the Democratic Party instead.....and certainly voice their criticism of various Islamic practices today...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

They support them.
As they supported slavery.

That's why they accuse us of it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

No, slavery is NOT slavery.

In biblical times, "slave" was essentially a word for employee. Slaves were PAID for their services, and they were freed every so many years. And I don't believe they were born slaves, at leastSl not in Hebrew society.

Slaves could own property. Slaves could be heard in court. Slaves could be and were learned and respected members of society.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> I'm really sick and tired of Lefties today attacking Christians about slavery and women's rights (their two claims to fame)....it is so hypocritical...
> 
> If they were truly concerned about those two topics they would criticize the Democratic Party instead.....and certainly voice their criticism of various Islamic practices today...



Relax.  Nobody's throwing you to the lions.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

You're trying. Daniel was thrown to the lions because he dared to publicly proclaim a belief in God. You also want to make that illegal.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You're trying. Daniel was thrown to the lions because he dared to publicly proclaim a belief in God. You also want to make that illegal.



Really?  I want it to be illegal to proclaim a belief in God?  Show me any post I've written that says that.  Just one.

Religious freedom comes from our Constitution, a secular document.   That's my position.  Nothing anti-religion in that.

Your Christian martyr complex has a hair trigger, Allie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2010)

Not scrolling through 54 pages.

The Founders based our government on Rome, the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic.

Instead of a Caesar we have a President, we have a Senate -- albeit a bicameral one and we have the people, we have breads and circuses to keep us entertained

Not Catholicism, not the Church -- Rome.  Don't forget it

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
&#8212; Frank Zappa


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

No, it's not really a hair trigger. But I get highly antsy when people start claiming that the US is a secular nation, and Christian verbage has no place in public or in our politics. I suspect the motives of anyone who will lie about the principles upon which our country is founded, because I KNOW that the reason they lie about them is because they want to remove those freedoms. By claiming they never existed, or were never SUPPOSED to exist, and furthermore, are the root of myriad and elusive "problems". That is the way freedom of religion AND freedom of speech is shut down.

Read your history.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And further, if the majority of our citizenry is Christian, how do we describe our citizenry? As non-Christian?



as Americans.

as for "majority".....

are you sure you believe the "majority" are "christian"?

cus

seems to me.....

that YOU said;

liberals HATE god and CHRISTIANS!

and didn't you ALSO say that some christians sects aren't REAL christians?

I believe you did.....

basically claiming that ONLY SOME christians are REAL christians

so.....

let's add them up;

if liberals HATE christians

and 30% of the population is probably liberal

and (according to you) many christian sects are NOT real christians

let's say another 30%

That's 60% of the population that YOU have declared to NOT be REAL christians

plus;
jews
muslims
zoroastrians
buddhists
hindu

seems like
according to your own statements
the majority are NOT real christians


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And further, if the majority of our citizenry is Christian, how do we describe our citizenry? As non-Christian?
> ...



Now that we've established that dikrules is insane....


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, it's not really a hair trigger. But I get highly antsy when people start claiming that the US is a secular nation, and Christian verbage has no place in public or in our politics. I suspect the motives of anyone who will lie about the principles upon which our country is founded, because I KNOW that the reason they lie about them is because they want to remove those freedoms. By claiming they never existed, or were never SUPPOSED to exist, and furthermore, are the root of myriad and elusive "problems". That is the way freedom of religion AND freedom of speech is shut down.
> 
> Read your history.



The only one lying is you.  You claim I want it to be illegal to proclaim the word of God.  I never said that.

I'm debating you about the Constitution which is NOT a religious document, but a secular one.

Why is the term secular so threatening to you.  It simply keeps government in one place and religion in another.

Yes, some of the founders were Christian.  But not all of them were and the Constitution is not a religous document.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Can you imagine if Riles and Shaman merged?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And further, if the majority of our citizenry is Christian, how do we describe our citizenry? As non-Christian?
> ...



Hahaha.  You're a real character.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Not scrolling through 54 pages.
> 
> The Founders based our government on Rome, the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic.
> 
> ...



Partially.
However, the founding fathers also recognized that Rome's demise came about at the same time they started persecuting Christians.

So while they considered Roman political structure, they still maintained that liberty comes from God, and freedom of religion and freedom of speech in all things are God-given rights, and the federal government exists ONLY TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Not scrolling through 54 pages.
> ...



Wow.  You really have an active imagination.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

No, I have a pretty good grasp of history.

Which you obviously don't. I wouldn't make fun of it, if I were you. It makes you appear pretty ridiculous.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, it's not really a hair trigger. But I get highly antsy when people start claiming that the US is a secular nation, and Christian verbage has no place in public or in our politics. I suspect the motives of anyone who will lie about the principles upon which our country is founded, because I KNOW that the reason they lie about them is because they want to remove those freedoms. By claiming they never existed, or were never SUPPOSED to exist, and furthermore, are the root of myriad and elusive "problems". That is the way freedom of religion AND freedom of speech is shut down.
> 
> Read your history.



"No, it's not really a hair trigger."

seems like it is
you are ALWAYS very angry

you yell
and swear
and insult people
and i've been told you smell funny....


"But I get highly antsy when people start claiming that the US is a secular nation,"

it IS a secular nation

everyone has a right to worship ANY religion or NO religion
christians have no special rights in America
our laws are based onlogic and reaosn (mostly) but NOT on christian beliefs


" and Christian verbage has no place in public or in our politics."

for the most part, it doesn't.

of course
you have the right to TRY and impose your religious lunacies
unconstitutional as those may be
but you do not have the right to IMPOSE your religious beliefs
or litigate them

thanks to the secular constitution


" I suspect the motives of anyone who will lie about the principles upon which our country is founded, because I KNOW that the reason they lie about them is because they want to remove those freedoms."

you're just a paranoid lunatic

nobody is trying to remove your religious freedoms

we just want you to keep them to yourself


" By claiming they never existed, or were never SUPPOSED to exist,"

they never existed
they were NEVER suppose to exist

and you can NOT make them exist

no matter how much you lie about it


" and furthermore, are the root of myriad and elusive "problems"."

some christian beliefs WERE the root of problems;

slavery
discrimination against blacks
denying women equal rights

all problems

all stemming from christian beliefs



" That is the way freedom of religion AND freedom of speech is shut down."

you will always have your freedom of religion and your freedom to say the most insane things!

I promise I will NEVER vote for any law that would EVER deny anyone their religious freedom.

I SWEAR to that.

I would NEVER vote for any politician that ever suggested anything like that

I SWEAR to that.

I don't believe in god or religion but I would defend the freedom of ANYONE to believe in ANY religion


I have no doubt you woud NOT DO THE SAME.

YOU would deny religious freedom and freedom of speech LONG before I ever would

in fact
the more you keep saying "America IS A CHRISTIAN NATION"

the more convinced I am that you would MAKE THAT A LAW.

And make another law denying all NON-christian religions the right to practice in America


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, I have a pretty good grasp of history.
> 
> Which you obviously don't. I wouldn't make fun of it, if I were you. It makes you appear pretty ridiculous.



Show me the history book that talks about the founders drafting the Constitution because the Roman's persecuted the Christians.  LOL

Hahahaha


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



thank you
thank you

I'll be appearing here all week

so tell your friends!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...



Are you a poet?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

"*And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God*? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever. 

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781"

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Sheesh, I had a whole bunch of quotes from founding fathers and my stupid laptop hiccupped and there they all went, down the internet tube.

So I'll stick with this one for now.

Jefferson just never disappoints.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 9, 2010)

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. 
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Not scrolling through 54 pages.
> ...



Where did you learn your history?   Seriously.   Rome did not fall until it was a Christian empire and had been one for a while...476 is when Rome fell...Christians defeated by pagan Teutonic tribes.

BTW, the Rome that our Founders admired and emulated was the Roman Republic....that fell before Jesus was even born.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, I have a pretty good grasp of history.
> ...



There is no such history book...unless you find something in one of those far Right Wing revisionist history books.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not really a hair trigger. But I get highly antsy when people start claiming that the US is a secular nation, and Christian verbage has no place in public or in our politics. I suspect the motives of anyone who will lie about the principles upon which our country is founded, because I KNOW that the reason they lie about them is because they want to remove those freedoms. By claiming they never existed, or were never SUPPOSED to exist, and furthermore, are the root of myriad and elusive "problems". That is the way freedom of religion AND freedom of speech is shut down.
> ...



That's because you're a fascist. You want to squelch the rights of others based upon what they might do in the future, based on your own skewed view.

I'm not interested in making anything regarding religion a law.

But I will fight to preserve the right to practice it publicly and without fear of oppression or restraint.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 9, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Well now it's painfully obvious that none of you have read anything written by the founding fathers.

Who criticized Rome, btw.


----------



## pinqy (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And Rome was CHRISTIAN for the time period they criticized.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Yeh, that's why they modeled ourselves after the Roman Republic...because they didn't like the Romans.   

And I've read quite a bit by the Founding Fathers.   You aren't even in the same zip code.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2010)

pinqy said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yep...that was the later Empire.  And lets not get into the Byzantine Empire (Christian) which was one of the most corrupt, decadent civilizations in recorded history.


----------



## rikules (Jul 9, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



the main question in this thread is

"was America founded on christianity"

NOT "what were our founding fathers personal religious beliefs"

consequently
going by OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

and not biographies, autobiographies and musings

we can conclude that they intended for America to have a FREEDOM of RELIGION
that transcended mere christianity...


it is obvious that America was founded on a LOT of things...

one of which was christianity


but it was also founded on NON-christian thoughts and ideas

jefferson
or washington
or madison
may have been "christians"
but they, too, read books
non-christian books....
books that helped them to become the freedom loving men that they were...

these men
our founding fathers
founded our nation PARTLY on christianity
and partly on the musings of the greeks, the french, and other philosophers who were NOT just regurgitating christianity...



you try to use the writings of SOME of our founding fathers to prove what you want to believe
what you DEMAND  EVERYONE  accept

you keep trying to FORCE PEOPLE to agree with you!

to the extent that you insult them and denigrate them (like an uncivilized lout) if they don't agree with you


but in doing so you purposely choose to ignore much of what our founding fathers wrote, said and believed, apparently because these do NOT further your agenda


besides saying; "I am a christian"  I guarantee that in those books you claim to read you will find these same men asserting that their beliefs have been affected by writers and thinkers and philosophers who were NOT christians

yet
you choose to ignore all of that


to say that "America was ONLY founded on christianity"
or "MOSTLY founded on christianity"

is like saying "tom brady won the super bowl with out any help from anyone else"


you give FAR TOO MUCH credit to christianity and far too little to locke


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2010)

Why on earth wouldn't you go by the statements the founding fathers themselves provide? 

Oh, because that's the only way you can make your weird revisionist history work. You have to eliminate the bulk of the evidence.

But there's still the Declaration. Which states what the  United States is and will be, and what it will represent.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2010)

Oh, wait..you guys are throwing that out too, claiming it's not REALLY a foundation document.

Crazy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2010)

The History Place - World War II in Europe Timeline: May 10, 1933 - Nazis Burn Books in Germany

Get rid of those pesky docs!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2010)

"Along these lines, Yale political scientist, Juan Linz and others have noted that *secularization had created a void which could be filled by a total ideology, making totalitarianism possible[33][34], and Roger Griffin has characterized fascism as a type of anti-religious political religion.[35] Such political religions vie with existing religions, and try, if possible, to replace or eradicate them.[*36] Hitler and the Nazi regime attempted to found their own version of Christianity called Positive Christianity which made major changes in its interpretation of the Bible which said that Jesus Christ was the son of God, but was not a Jew, and claimed that Christ despised Jews, and that the Jews were the ones solely responsible for Christ's death."

Fascism - New World Encyclopedia


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 10, 2010)

Whoever calls their opponent a Nazi first loses the debate.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Christopher said:


> I prefer the King James Translation as it tends to stick closer to the actual meaning.



Many scholars and theologians would contest that.





> Now, can you explain the context of what a slave was back then?  It was quite different than how we view it today.



They were captured and enslaved- like those brought here on the ships.


> Also, like I said I am skeptical of some of these things in the Bible, since I know man has changed some of it.  If Christianity really teaches that slaves as we define them were OK, then the "do unto others" principle is not true.  I don't believe that and I question anything that goes against what Christ taught.




And Jesus never spoke out against slavery, but he dd say that it is good to obey the laws of the prophets when your are able- that'd include the laws above pertaining to slavery.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



hey, if God gave a shit, he'd make sure people translated him properly- after all, it's his fucking fault we speak so many damned languages anyway, since he got jealous of out tower.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Secularism is as much a belief system or "religion" as is Christianity.....and these anti-Christian, anti-American Secularists are attempting to create their own form of "theocracy" in America by bastardizing our Constitution...






You remind me of 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOPoMgOBU1s]YouTube - Creationist Stupidity can be Limitless[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, slavery is NOT slavery.





You really need to read the book.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, I have a pretty good grasp of history.
> 
> Which you obviously don't. I wouldn't make fun of it, if I were you. It makes you appear pretty ridiculous.


You understanding of history is on par with your understanding of biology and the differences between a human and an orangutan.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> "*And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God*? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781"
> 
> ...




Especially when he advocates laws to keep religion out of the government in his home state.


----------



## Intense (Jul 10, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What you are missing is the Christian Principles that Madison and Jefferson applied in their reasoning, which included the Christian principle of both example and persuasion, rather than dictate, or force. Study Locke more. Locke was very critical of Christian Hypocrisy, failing to measure up, while imposing on others. Madison reflects on that in "Memorial and Remonstrance". Christianity has that built in Rectifier, when utilized, the competing Religions do not. Christianity contains the tools within itself to limit the impositions, any individual or group will use to control you. It is up to you to develop on that.


----------



## Intense (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



So tell me the story of the tower of Babel and the message behind it?


----------



## froggy (Jul 10, 2010)

Intense said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



The one where they were building a tower to heaven and God smote them with different languages so they couldn't understand each other.


----------



## rikules (Jul 10, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Why on earth wouldn't you go by the statements the founding fathers themselves provide?
> 
> Oh, because that's the only way you can make your weird revisionist history work. You have to eliminate the bulk of the evidence.
> 
> But there's still the Declaration. Which states what the  United States is and will be, and what it will represent.



"Why on earth wouldn't you go by the statements the founding fathers themselves provide? "


I do.

some said "I'm a christian"
some said "I'm a deist"

MOST of them said "every citizen has a right to their own religious freedom"

now
why don't YOU go by what they said?

instead of just cherry picking what you want in order to further your agenda?


----------



## rikules (Jul 10, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> The History Place - World War II in Europe Timeline: May 10, 1933 - Nazis Burn Books in Germany
> 
> Get rid of those pesky docs!




Is that yor granfather I see in that picture?

is that a more recent picture of yuo and your friends at a book burning?


btw...

you'll find that the only book bannings/burnings being requested/demanded in America are being demanded by......

conservative christians


can you say...."harry potter"?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Secularism is as much a belief system or "religion" as is Christianity.....and these anti-Christian, anti-American Secularists are attempting to create their own form of "theocracy" in America by bastardizing our Constitution...
> ...




"You've got to ignore the facts."     Wait a minute, I thought religion was about faith, not facts.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 10, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The History Place - World War II in Europe Timeline: May 10, 1933 - Nazis Burn Books in Germany
> ...



We don't want to bring up that Hitler was a self-proclaimed Christian, do we?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 10, 2010)

The pope condemned Harry Potter


----------



## rikules (Jul 10, 2010)

bodecea said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




I imagine it wouldn't help

facts don't work on cons like alliebabble 

as we both know
he cherry picks the "facts" (or not facts) that he needs to use to further his agenda

every thing else he just ignores


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Intense said:


> Study Locke more. Locke was very critical of Christian Hypocrisy, failing to measure up, while imposing on others.



Fuck Locke in the neck



> I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true  Church
> 
> ....
> 
> Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a  God.




No wonder Republicans love classical (bourgeois) liberalism


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Intense said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




Basically, god saw a massive pillar and it reminded him of his tiny penis, so he threw a fit.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



God has a penis?  No wonder we're in trouble.  Is it circumcised?  And a giant ow could be heard throughout the three thousand fold universe.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Why do you think he hates women so much and had to force himself upon Mary whether she wanted it or not?


'You will have my baby'

-what?

'Shut up, bitch! I am the Lord your God and that wasn't a question.'


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Secularism is as much a belief system or "religion" as is Christianity.....and these anti-Christian, anti-American Secularists are attempting to create their own form of "theocracy" in America by bastardizing our Constitution...
> ...



i especially like the part where he says....
"It's funny how we equate the word atheism with intellectual...it's the exact opposite"...


----------



## Christopher (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Many scholars and theologians would contest that.



Who are these "many" you refer to?



JBeukema said:


> They were captured and enslaved- like those brought here on the ships.



Nope, that is a common misconception though.  Here, from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, regarding the ancient world:


> Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semi-voluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...*In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom...*



Note the last sentence.  Our views on the term slavery are typically based on our Western experience of slavery.  You cannot say the slavery of the Old Testament times is the same US slavery.



JBeukema said:


> And Jesus never spoke out against slavery, but he dd say that it is good to obey the laws of the prophets when your are able- that'd include the laws above pertaining to slavery.



You claim Jesus "never" spoke against it.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus said?  What we know Jesus did say indicates He would be very much against slavery as we define it today.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses and gave us a higher law, so no that would not include any "laws" about slavery however it was defined.  No offense, but you really do not seem to have a basic understanding of the scriptures.  Could you please share where it is you learned about the Bible?


----------



## Intense (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Study Locke more. Locke was very critical of Christian Hypocrisy, failing to measure up, while imposing on others.
> ...



You have some serious issues with Locke, that's for sure. I don't think he would have been too big on you either. He was good on fighting Tyranny though, and that was important, then and now. Many changes in the social contract between then and now. Our perspectives are totally alien to his time JB. One day you will change sides.


----------



## Intense (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Have you ever experienced a Saturn Return? Why fuck with the forces of creation like that? I hope for your sake, you are given a pass or two or two hundred. You have Liberty, Purpose, and Ability. Why not contribute more to the constructive side of you? Stop holding it prisoner? We are all short on balance, you are not alone  there. Is it really the current that needs fighting and changing? Could the problem be elsewhere? Have you ever watched "Dexter" ? I think might like it. Great Series.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Christopher said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > They were captured and enslaved- like those brought here on the ships.
> ...






It's all there in the OT.

Of course, it was mostly virgin girls who enslaved (sexually) god said all mean,. boys, and females that had already been fucked had to die.

quote]*In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom...*[/quote]



Again, it's all there in their own holy books.


> You claim Jesus "never" spoke against it.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus said?  What we know Jesus did say indicates He would be very much against slavery as we define it today.



O RLY? Tell me where Jesus is quoted as opposing slavery..


> Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses and gave us a higher law, so no that would not include any "laws" about slavery however it was defined.



* "It is easier for Heaven and  Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law  to become  invalid." 

*_*"All scripture is  inspired by God* and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for  correction,  and for training in righteousness..."


Peter sure never got that impression

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
_


> No offense, but you really do not seem to have a basic understanding of the scriptures.



I quote the text and you simply make shit up.

I present facts and you present conjecture and your opinion


-Rev. James T. Beukema


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 10, 2010)

Intense said:


> One day you will change sides.




I did. I was a Liberal back when I was stupid and knew nothing but the empty rhetoric of the bourgeois liberals and their useful idiots.


----------



## rikules (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > One day you will change sides.
> ...



well

you don't seem overly fond of deranged right wing conservatives, either

that's a GOOD thing.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 10, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> It's all there in the OT.



All I did was provide the context of what a slave meant back then, because you implied it was the same as today.  It is not the same as our definition as you implied.  That was the point I was disputing.  I've provided the evidence from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. 

Regardless of whether or not you think God condoned slavery in the OT, it goes against what Christ taught.  There is a contradiction.  I will stick to what Christ has said, because his teachings are consistent.  I understand that man has changed things in the Bible, both intentionally and unintentionally.



JBeukema said:


> O RLY? Tell me where Jesus is quoted as opposing slavery.



I was disputing your claim that Jesus "never" said anything opposing slavery.  Again, do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus said?  Just yes or no will do.

How about the Golden Rule?  Do you honestly think Jesus would have us treat others as slaves according to our definition today?  It goes against the basic teachings He did give us.





JBeukema said:


> * "It is easier for Heaven and  Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law  to become  invalid."
> 
> *_*"All scripture is  inspired by God* and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for  correction,  and for training in righteousness..."
> 
> ...



The all scripture is inspired by God is true, as long as man hasnt tampered with it.  I only believe the Bible as far as it has not been tampered with and as far as it has been translated correctly.  Do you honestly believe there are no issues with translation of the Bible?  That there are no misinterpretations?  There is plenty of evidence of it.
Here is where Jesus said he came to fulfill the law:
Matthew 5:17-18

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



JBeukema said:


> I quote the text and you simply make shit up.
> 
> I present facts and you present conjecture and your opinion
> 
> ...



Anyone can quote text. That doesn't always mean the text reflect reality.  The problem is that you quote text without understanding the context.  You also quote from a different translation of the Bible.  Those two things are the biggest issues with your understanding.  Look up the most accurate translations of the Bible, then consider the full context behind the scripture.  That is the most honest thing to do and what I have always tried to do.

I have made nothing up.  I have backed up the things I have said with evidence and context.  It is you who is backing up misinterpreted text.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

rikules said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...




Those on the far left and on the far right can be said to be equally delusional. They are both ruled by faith. (see Arthur Koestler's account of his own story and l, as shared in _The God that Failed_ for a good examination of the role of faith when it comes to Communists, for instance). Extremists on both sides refuse evidence as a challenge to their faith and it's a waste of time to bother them with facts or reasoned arguments. This goes for teabaggers who love their social security and unfunded medicare part D as well as for Communists and 'progressives' (read: totalitarian socialists). In the economic debate, it applies to self-styled arch-libertarians and also to many Keynesian who imagine themselves as gos who can plot the working of the market and mold human action to suit their grand purpose.


But I digress. Moving along...


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

Christopher said:


> .  I will stick to what Christ has said, because his teachings are consistent.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEWtoXHsN8]YouTube - Brief Bible Blunders -- Episode #8[/ame]

_ anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes  the gold sacred?

You fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is  within also?_


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > One day you will change sides.
> ...



So what exactly are you again, Puke?
A commie? Anarchist? Lunatic?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

BTW, for those who insist that American isn't a Christian nation but a secular one modeled after Rome...

Rome WAS a theocracy.


----------



## editec (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> BTW, for those who insist that American isn't a Christian nation but a secular one modeled after Rome...
> 
> Rome WAS a theocracy.


 
Which one?

Eastern or Western Roman emire?

At what time in Rome history thousand years history are you referring?

Rome was never a theocracy as we understand the word today, but you are right in the sense that there elements of taxpaying that had to do with going through the motions and paying taxes through the temples, that is true

The things you don't know about Rome could fill a library, Allie

The things I don't know about Rome could fill one, too, so don't feel too bad about that.

People devote their entire lives to studying that empire and they can bearly scratch the surface of its long and incredibly complex story.

So generalizing like you just did makes like zero sense.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

I'm using wiki. It's late and I'm tired. If you know as much as you profess to know about Rome, I doubt if you would have asked me which Rome I was referring to. 

"Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God"."

"Denying the gods of the ancient Greece and Rome was a crime. Furthermore the emperors of Rome were often deified."

Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## editec (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm using wiki. It's late and I'm tired. If you know as much as you profess to know about Rome, I doubt if you would have asked me which Rome I was referring to.
> 
> "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God"."
> 
> ...


 
Well if Wiki is telling you that Rome was a theocracy, it's just wrong.

I was asking you which Rome you were referring to because there were two eventually.

Trying to compare Roman government to today's theocracies demands that you

1. don't understand the complex nature of Rome's government or relgion, and

2. Don't understand that that compexity was further complicated by the fact that it kept changing over time, too.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

Bullshit.
Rome was a theocracy, where people could be (and were) punished for worshiping the wrong gods, and where CAESAR was deified.

Wiki has it right on those points at any rate.

So was or wasn't the US based upon Rome? And how does that fit in with Rome being a theocracy?


----------



## Intense (Jul 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > One day you will change sides.
> ...



So your training wheels are off! Good for you! Know consequence. One still has to choose between solving the problem or contributing to it. Temptation is a bitch.   Purpose, Intention, coupled with principle, keep one better on point. Here's an idea!  Do no harm, when you can avoid it.  

P.S. Try not to piss off the forces of creation and what's behind them, by whining.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Bullshit.
> Rome was a theocracy, where people could be (and were) punished for worshiping the wrong gods, and where CAESAR was deified.
> 
> Wiki has it right on those points at any rate.
> ...



Rome was not a theocracy.  It was a democracy and a republic.  Rome took many of its ideas from the Greeks.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.
> ...



Oh. My. God.

GREECE was ALSO a THEOCRACY.

So let me get this straight....despite the statements of the founding fathers, and our FOUNDING document, the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that freedom comes ONLY from God, and that our government is structured on Christian tenets...you insist that the US is a secular state because it WASN'T founded on Christian ideals because it was REALLY just a copy of ROME.

But in your world, Rome WASN'T a theocracy, despite the fact that the Caesar was DEIFIED and people were killed for worshipping gods (for example, CHRISTIANS) not sanctioned by the state.

Are you serious? Is this really what you are trying to assert? Because now we're in crazy land.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...




I've gone over this many times, my retarded little pet.

I'm one who, unlike you, doesn't have to check a child's genitals to know whether it's human or orangutan.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm using wiki. It's late and I'm tired. If you know as much as you profess to know about Rome, I doubt if you would have asked me which Rome I was referring to.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I'm not your pet.
Though I'm sure you find pets attractive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > .  I will stick to what Christ has said, because his teachings are consistent.
> ...



I love it when people make fools of themselves by doing stuff like this.

First the video. John 3:17 and 12:47 both use the word krino, and John 9:39 uses the word krima. Both are translated as judgement or condemnation, but they do not mean the same thing. Krino is used as the act of judging, and krima is the actual judgement itself. Jesus did not come to judge the world, but the world judge itself by rejecting him. Any first year seminary student could dismiss this as stupidity, which is why no translation of the Bible I know of uses the same word to translate both of thses words. In other words, whoever made this video had to pick and choose through different translations to get what they wanted.

The verses you quoted are the same. They use three different words that are translated as fool. The first uses rhaka, and Matt 5:22 is the only place this is used in the Bible. It appears to be the strongest possible use of the concept of calling someone a fool, and literally means empty headed.

Your second example uses moros, and I think we can all guess what word that is now used in English that means the same thing. The third example uses the word aphron, and it just means rash.

You keep posting stuff like this and you might actually be qualified to discuss the Bible in an intelligent manner in about 20 years.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 11, 2010)

editec said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, for those who insist that American isn't a Christian nation but a secular one modeled after Rome...
> ...



Pretty much its entire history after the Senate was neutered. It was a republic on paper, but the various Ceasars had all the power and were viewed as Gods, which is why Caligula could get away with all the things he did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 11, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.
> ...





That is as stupid as your claim that the Founders were not Christians. The Greeks, as such, are a creation of modern history. What we refer to as Greece was a collection of city-states that formed a loose trade confederation and often fought wars with each other. 

Peloponnesian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rome, on the other hand, was an Empire. After Constantine it referred to itself as the Holy Roman Empire and was effectively run from the Vatican. Augustus was declared to be divine after his death by the Roman Senate, and a cult of divinity was part of the culture around the Caesar.

You might be able to argue that Rome was not a theocracy in the sense that it was not tun by priests, but since you also want to argue that Dominionists want to turn the US into a theocracy I think you might find it difficult to do so and be intellectually consistent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Yes we are, and it is really weird here.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Some of them






Especially when you wait patiently for your Master to come home


----------



## Samson (Jul 11, 2010)

I'm proud to see that an absurd OP can evolve into some really nice S&M pics


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 11, 2010)

Samson said:


> I'm proud to see that an absurd OP can evolve into some really nice S&M pics


That's not S&M


That's M/S / D/S and _maybe_ BD


This is S&M







(only PG pic on page 1 of Google)


----------



## Samson (Jul 11, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm proud to see that an absurd OP can evolve into some really nice S&M pics
> ...



I won't tell The Gunster if you won't.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 11, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Greece was made up of many different city states, some plutocracies, some dictatorships, and Athens a pure democracy....I don't know where you get this theocracy bs but you need to restudy your history.   Serious.


----------



## Douger (Jul 11, 2010)

" You're either with us or 'gainst us"
Understand ?


----------



## Intense (Jul 12, 2010)

Douger said:


> " You're either with us or 'gainst us"
> Understand ?



Diaper bomb!!! Evacuate the area!


----------



## editec (Jul 12, 2010)

The USA was founded on PROPERTY, not morality.

_Duh!_

Read the constitution.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2010)

Read the declaration, dumbass. Read the discussions of the founders about what they were working towards.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 12, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm proud to see that an absurd OP can evolve into some really nice S&M pics
> ...



So you get your kicks by flaunting your penchant for moral depravity in front of decent religious people on a religious topics messageboard thread....what a scumbag....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



They don't get much more unpleasant and icky than Puke.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 12, 2010)

What are you morons crying about?

Allie was the one who started talking about her attraction to her pets.

Then again, she did say she has to check their penises to see whether they're circumcised or not so she knows whether she's fucking a human or an orangutan.


----------



## Samson (Jul 12, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



No, he gets his kicks when you notice his "penchant for moral depravity in front of decent religious people."


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 12, 2010)

Samson said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



probably gets his sick kicks either way....i'm just calling it as i see it...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 12, 2010)

I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
The folks we have here would not have wanted any today. All they want is a declaration.
The Decleration of Independence was quoted by Abraham Lincoln often and he was the first one to proclaim any religous significance. Strange how the very folks that now claim this is the moral standard of all of our laws fought that idea during the Civil War. 
The declaration was after we had been at war for over a year with the British over tax disputes. 
The last time I had a problem with my taxes I used the God angle also.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 12, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> The folks we have here would not have wanted any today. All they want is a declaration.
> The Decleration of Independence was quoted by Abraham Lincoln often and he was the first one to proclaim any religous significance. Strange how the very folks that now claim this is the moral standard of all of our laws fought that idea during the Civil War.
> The declaration was after we had been at war for over a year with the British over tax disputes.
> The last time I had a problem with my taxes I used the God angle also.



The founders were very religious and would never have used the Constitution as a springboard for say, freedom of pornography....

....which is one among many reasons why secularists attempt to change our history...and to omit even the very existence of the very strong Christian society in which our country was born, raised and nutured...secularists wish to eradicate any and all moral standards...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 12, 2010)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> ...



How come these religous people had kids with their slaves, sold them and felt okay about that?
They were religous people that drank heavily, owned slaves, gambled, paid prostitutes, brewed, smuggled and fought their own new government when they tried to tax their whiskey.
How well would that go over today if the Governor and Congres person of your state owned a brewery and stood against any taxes on his brew? 
The Founders were great men. Religion was never first and foremost on their list. 
The Torries were the religous colonists of that time. They had the support of the Anglican, Episcoplian, church on their side.
The Torries wore a different jersey than our team. They and their desire for religous influence in government, like they had in England and the Founders opposed, LOST.
One only has to open their eyes and know that Benjamin Franklin, and many other Founders of the time, frequented the ladies of the evening often. The porn thrill of the day after a brew or 7.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

Deism in the United States

 Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764&#8211;1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."

In the United States there is controversy over whether the Founding Fathers were Christians, deists, or something in between.  Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful."

For his part, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps one of the Founding Fathers with the most outspoken of Deist tendencies, though he more often referred to himself as a Unitarian. In particular, his treatment of the Biblical gospels which he titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, but which subsequently became more commonly known as the Jefferson Bible, exhibits a strong deist tendency of stripping away all supernatural and dogmatic references from the Christ story.
Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Read the declaration, dumbass. Read the discussions of the founders about what they were working towards.



If you are referring to the Declaration of Independence, it is not a document for forming a country's government.   And it was written 11 years before the Constitution by a man who was not even in country when the Constitution was written.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

The  Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished. 

That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution  thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government. 

Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to Natures God, Creator, and Divine Providence. These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural. 

One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator and not the Christian God meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness  none of which are rights discussed in the Constitution. 

Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want. 
Declaration of Independence & Christianity Myth: Does the Declaration of Independence Support Christianity?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> The folks we have here would not have wanted any today. All they want is a declaration.
> The Decleration of Independence was quoted by Abraham Lincoln often and he was the first one to proclaim any religous significance. Strange how the very folks that now claim this is the moral standard of all of our laws fought that idea during the Civil War.
> The declaration was after we had been at war for over a year with the British over tax disputes.
> The last time I had a problem with my taxes I used the God angle also.



No, the folks here do NOT just want a declaration. It's the anti-God lunatics that want to pretend the declaration of independence is NOT a founding document, that we founded our country on Rome, and the untold numbers of discussions our founders had specifically about what a country should be built upon mean nothing. 

In addition, you insist that our country is secular because it was built upon a Roman model...but Rome was a THEOCRACY. 

It's just pure ignorance.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> ...



Prove that Rome was a theocracy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 12, 2010)

It was against the law to follow non-prescribed gods.

They killed people who did.

That's the proof.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> ...



Um...the Roman Republic was not a Theocracy.   I don't know what garbage you are reading telling you those lies but the Roman Republic is the framework that our founders built our Republic on...with some obvious changes.   Why do you think some of the most common architectual themes in Washington D.C. are Roman like?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> It was against the law to follow non-prescribed gods.
> 
> They killed people who did.
> 
> That's the proof.



Actually, they did not...the Romans were well known for adapting, borrowing, allowing other gods...the Jews were not forced to give up Judaism, were they?  The Persians were not forced to give up Mithrasism and Zoastraism were they?   The Celts weren't forced to give up their religions were they?   (Granted, the Druid were killed in Britain but it was a political move to wipe out the Celtic leadership)


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

The closest Rome ever came to becoming a theocracy was as a Christian one.  Allie wants a Christian theocracy in the US.


Theodosius issued on 28 February 380 an important decree that the only true religion was Christianity and specifically the form of it that was practiced by Rome and Alexandria. At the time Pope Damasus and the Bishop of Alexandria were following the Nicene Creed. The effect of the pronouncement was to make the Nicene creed the only true and Catholic religion and to formally proscribe heresy.
Theodosius takes the Roman Empire toward Theocracy


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad the Founders were smart enough to write a set of laws to found and govern this country.
> ...



I am not and have never been "anti God". 
I am just as much a Christian as you or anyone else here. I have never questioned YOUR faith and Christian beliefs.
You have shown your true colors. You know you are wrong and stoop to claiming those that differ from you as "anti God". Your claims are not Christian at all.
Stop before the hole you are digging caves in on you.
Next time have the discipline and good manners to govern yourself accordingly.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

Allie you have provided no proof that Rome was a theocracy, nor that the US was built on roman theocratic model.


----------



## Neubarth (Jul 12, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Allie you have provided no proof that Rome was a theocracy, nor that the US was built on roman theocratic model.



Rome was tolerant of a multitude of gods.  They even considered their Caesars to be gods along with the rest.  All you had to do to placate the roman government is worship a majority of the gods and pretend to honor Caesar.


----------



## Neubarth (Jul 12, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The closest Rome ever came to becoming a theocracy was as a Christian one.  Allie wants a Christian theocracy in the US.
> 
> 
> Theodosius issued on 28 February 380 an important decree that the only true religion was Christianity and specifically the form of it that was practiced by Rome and Alexandria. At the time Pope Damasus and the Bishop of Alexandria were following the Nicene Creed. The effect of the pronouncement was to make the Nicene creed the only true and Catholic religion and to formally proscribe heresy.
> Theodosius takes the Roman Empire toward Theocracy


About this time Rome collapsed as a lasting effective government in the western half of the empire. Constantinople continued in the east.


----------



## Neubarth (Jul 12, 2010)

400 AD Alaric and the Visigoths invade Italy, capturing much of the peninsula in the south
401 AD 	Vandals led by King Radagaisus invade Noricum and Raetia. Birth of emperor Theodosius II.
402 AD 	Vandal auxiliary general Flavius Stilicho defeats Alaric at Pollentia.
403 AD 	Stilicho defeats the army of Alaric in the battle of Verona, forcing Alaric to retire. Honorius moves the capital of the Western Empire to Ravenna.
405 AD 	Stilicho repels a barbarian invasion of Italy under Radagaisus. Martyrdom of the monk Telemachus, who is stoned to death trying to break up an arenar event, closes the colosseum and officially ends gladiatorial combat in Rome.
406 AD 	Vandals invades Gaul.
407 AD 	The last legion in Britain, Legio II Augusta, is withdrawn, and the province abandoned.
408 AD 	Murder of Stilicho by Honorius. Death of the eastern emperor Arcadius. Replaced by Theodosius II at age 7.
409 AD 	Vandals, Suevi and Alans invade Spain, forever removing it from Roman control. Alaric, after besieging Rome, decalres Attalus as emperor.
410 AD 	Alaric sacks Rome, the first external capture of Rome in 800 years, and deposes Attalus. Alaric dies shortly after. He is succeeded by Athaulf as the new king of the Visigoths.
412 - 413 AD 	Constantius III drives Alaric and the Visigoths from Italy into Gaul.
413 AD 	Revolt of Heraclius in Africa put down.
417 AD 	Visigoths settle in Aquitania, Gaul.
419 AD 	Birth of the Emperor Valentinian III.
420 AD 	Ostrogoths settle in Pannonia. Death of the Christian writer St. Jerome.
421 AD 	Death of Constantius III.
423 AD 	Death of Honorius, replaced by the biy Valentinian with Placidia as regent.
427 AD 	Boniface revolts in Africa.
429 AD 	Invited by Boniface, the Vandals in Spain, under Geiseric invade and conquer Mauretania, then Africa.
430 AD 	Death of the writer and Christian St. Augustine of Hippo.
430's AD 	Roman General Flavius Aetius campaigns against Visigoths, Burgundians and Franks in Gaul, re-establishing some Roman control.
434 AD 	Attila made King of the Huns.
435 AD 	King Theodoric I of the Visigoths besieges the Romans at Narbonne but is eventually defeated by Aetius.
436 AD 	Aetius defeats the Burgundians.
438 AD 	Theodosius publishes a code clarifying Roman law.
439 AD 	Geiseric of the Vandals takes Carthage.
440 AD 	Geiseric invades Sicily, but is bribed to leave.
441 AD 	Attila the Hun invades Thracia.
442 AD 	Britain falls to Saxon invaders, despite continuing pleas for help to Aetius.
443 AD 	Attila comes to terms with Theodosius and the eastern empire, focusing instead on the west.
447 AD 	Attila invades Moesia.
450 AD 	Justin I, future Byzantine emperor, is born in Illyria. Marcian succeeds Theodosius II and stops paying tribute to the Huns.
451 AD 	Attila invades Gaul devastating as he goes. The huns are eventually defeated by Aetius and Theodoric I the Visigoth, though Theodoric is killed and replaced by Theodoric II.
452 AD 	Undeterred by defeat, Attila invades Italy but decides to spare Rome and retires.
453 AD 	Death of Attila the Hun.
454 AD 	Revolts, internal power struggles and enemy attacks collapse the Hunnic empire. With the threat of the Huns gone, Valentinian has Aetius murdered for fear of his power. The Alemmani invade across the Danube.
455 AD 	Valentinian III murdered by supporters of Aetius. Maximus proclaimed emperor. At the request of Valentinian's widow Eudoxia, Geiseric of the Vandals invades and sacks Rome from Africa. He carries off Eudoxia and her daughters, leaving a power vacuum in the west. The Visigoths proclaim the former general of Aetius, Avitus as new emperor in the west.
456 AD 	'Master of Soldiers' Ricimer launches a fleet against widescale naval attacks of the Vandals.
457 AD 	Majorian is proclaimed as emperor in the West and is recognized by the Eastern Emperor Leo, who had previously replaced Marcian.
460 AD 	Destruction of Majorian's fleet by the Vandals off Cartagena.
461 AD 	Death of Majorian. Libius Severus emperor.
463 AD 	The Goths are prevented from crossing the Loire River by the Roman general Aegidius.
465 AD 	Libius Severus dies. Ricimer rules as patrician under Leo in Constantinople.
466 AD 	Euric, King of the Visigoths, begins conquest of Spain.
467 AD 	Eastern Emperor Leo appoints the Roman general to emperor of the Western Empire.
468 AD 	Leo sends Basiliscus to crush Geiseric in Africa, but his army is destroyed.
472 AD 	Ricimer deposes Anthemius and installs Olybrius as western emperor, however both die shortly after of illnesses.
473 AD 	Glycerius set up as western Emperor.
474 AD 	Death of Leo, replaced by his infant grandson Leo II who also dies shortly thereafter. Zeno ascends as emperor in the east. Julius Nepos ascends as the latest puppet in the west with the support of the eastern empire.
475 AD 	Romulus Augustulus, son of Hunnic general Orestes installed as the 'last Roman Emperor'. Julius Nepos flees to Dalmatia.
476 AD 	Germanic general Odoacer, in command of the troops in Italy is proclaimed King. He desposes Romulus and offers to rule as King in the name of Zeno, the eastern emperor. Zeno prefers to keep Julius Nepos as Emperor, and Odoacer agrees, but Nepos never returns to Rome.
476 AD 	End of the Western Roman Empire. With Odoacer's appointment as King, the system of Roman government, first Republic than Imperial ceases to exist. After over a century of near constant invasions and usurpations, the Roman system finally collapses


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 12, 2010)

Neubarth said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Allie you have provided no proof that Rome was a theocracy, nor that the US was built on roman theocratic model.
> ...



That doesn't make Rome a theocracy.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 12, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I don't think Neubarth was arguing they were...his post supports what we've been saying.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. This means that religious belief should be kept in the privacy of an individual. The belief or non belief of a person is deliberately ignored by state administration. This does not mean any rejection or denial of religion.

Secularism has two distinct meanings:

1- It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.

2- It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination.  

Secular Nations


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



For a period of time, I believe it was under Constantine or directly after him.

The Romans did demand that you also worshiped Caesar as a god as well, which went against christian beliefs.  What I bolded above seems kind of funny to me coming from you, would you be willing to do that today? 

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In its first three centuries, the Christian church endured periods of persecution at the hands of Roman authorities. Christians were persecuted by local authorities on an intermittent and ad-hoc basis. In addition, there were several periods of empire-wide persecution which was directed from the seat of government in Rome.
> 
> This experience, and the associated martyrs and apologists, would have significant historical and theological consequences for the developing faith.[1]
> 
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Neubarth said:
> ...



That was Neubarth'c comment not mine.  What does the persecution of the Christians by the Romans have to do with the topic that America's Consitution and government are secular? 

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler.  Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion.  Rome was not a theocracy and the US was never a theocracy either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy


----------



## bodecea (Jul 13, 2010)

I would like Allie Baba to explain how the Roman Republic, which our Founders modeled our government after, persecuted Christians...when the Roman Republic fell before Jesus was even born.......


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

bodecea said:


> I would like Allie Baba to explain how the Roman Republic, which our Founders modeled our government after, persecuted Christians...when the Roman Republic fell before Jesus was even born.......




For goddsake Bod....I'll delete this post if you delete the original....


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

Samson said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I would like Allie Baba to explain how the Roman Republic, which our Founders modeled our government after, persecuted Christians...when the Roman Republic fell before Jesus was even born.......
> ...



Yeah, that's a bit embarassing there, no doubt.  Hopefully it was a joke.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

The Roman Republic was a very successful government. It lasted from 510 BC until 23 BC - almost 500 years. 
A brief History of Rome

Allie claims the US was patterned after the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.  Bodecea has it right.


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Roman Republic was a very successful government. It lasted from 510 BC until 23 BC - almost 500 years.
> A brief History of Rome
> 
> Allie claims the US was patterned after the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire.  Bodecea has it right.



But from what I read the conversation was about the Roman Empire, I haven't read the whole thing, just the last several pages.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The Roman Republic was a very successful government. It lasted from 510 BC until 23 BC - almost 500 years.
> ...



The point Allie was making was that the republic of the US was founded on the republic of rome and she claimed rome was a theocracy.  I haven't read any history books attributing our form of government to the Roman empire.

Here's more food for thought:

The first thing to note about the Constitution of the United States is that it proposes three branches of government, separate but equal, each with their own enumerated powers. This is a strange setup considering that the Bible does not describe any human governance remotely resembling the system established by the Constitution. There are only two basic types of governance mentioned in the Bible at all, really: monarchies and the rule by Judges. 

Additionally, in the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers clearly state that governments &#8220;deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.&#8221; This is at odds with the Letter of Paul to the Romans, where Paul clearly states that &#8220;there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.&#8221; Indeed, according to Paul, all of the Founding Fathers who participated in the American Revolution were sinful, because &#8220;whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.&#8221;
http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/12/is-american-government-based-on-christianity/


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Where's her original post?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. This means that religious belief should be kept in the privacy of an individual. The belief or non belief of a person is deliberately ignored by state administration. This does not mean any rejection or denial of religion.
> 
> Secularism has two distinct meanings:
> 
> ...



Separation of church and state is different than separation of religion and state....


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

I don't know.  What I do know is the Rome was not a theocracy and neither is the US.  I think it would take a lot of research that Allie hasn't provided to prove her claim that our form of government was patterned on Rome.  Bottom line.  The US was not founded on Christianity.

It was modeled on the British government.  The legislature is modeled after Parliament.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

'Rome' is like 'Ancient Greece'

You have to specify exactly what region your talking about and during what timespan.

Seriously, people.


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> I don't know.  What I do know is the Rome was not a theocracy and neither is the US.  I think it would take a lot of research that Allie hasn't provided to prove her claim that our form of government was patterned on Rome.



The roman empire was a theocrasy for a period of time, so it all depends on where you are setting the parameters.  I know of no christians personally that want this to be a theocrasy anyway, so it's a stupid argument to begin with in my opinion.


----------



## Newby (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> 'Rome' is like 'Ancient Greece'
> 
> You have to specify exactly what region your talking about and during what timespan.
> 
> Seriously, people.



Exactly.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know.  What I do know is the Rome was not a theocracy and neither is the US.  I think it would take a lot of research that Allie hasn't provided to prove her claim that our form of government was patterned on Rome.
> ...



I can name some groups of Christians that want the US to be a theocracy.  I don't think they'll ever succeed.

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." (From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press)


Theocratic Organizations

Alliance for Marriage
American Center for Law and Justice
American Family Association
American Vision - founded by Gary Demar, leading theocratic ideologue
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Chalcedon Foundation - led by R. J. Rushdoony
Christian Action Network
Christian Business Men's Committee
Christian Coalition of America
Christian Exodus
ChristianAmerica.Com
Citizens for Excellence in Education - arm of National Association of Christian Educators
CitizenLink.Com - an arm of Focus on the Family
Coalition on Revival - Applying Biblical Principles to Every Sphere of Life and Thought
Concerned Women for America
Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens
Coral Ridge Ministries - led by D. James Kennedy
Council for National Policy - secret government council policy formed by Tim LaHaye 
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Creation Resource Foundation
Eagle Forum
Family Policy Network
Family Research Council
Free Congress Foundation
Home School Foundation - funded by the HSLDF
Home School Legal Defense Foundation (HSLDF)
Institute for Christian Economics - led by Gary North
National Association of Christian Educators (NACE)
Joshua Generation - aimed at 11 to 19 year olds; affiliated with Patrick Henry College
National Center for Home Education - affiliated with HSLDF
National Clergy Council
National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI)- funded by HSLDF
Operation Rescue
Restore America
Rutherford Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
Vision America - founded by Rick Scarborough, Baptist
Vision Forum Ministries
Wall Builders - led by David Barton
Worldview Weekend

Theocratic Educational Institutions

Patrick Henry College - for homeschooled children, partner of HSLDF
Regent University - "Regent" refers to Christian rulers who will govern the nation

Theocratic Publications and Media

A Christian Manifesto - address by Francis A. Schaeffer; summary of theocratic views
A Manifesto for the Christian Church - endorsed by the major theocratic players
American Vision Home School Online Store
Biblical Worldview Magazine
Citizen Magazine - published by Focus on the Family
Civilized Revolt (Formerly Virtue Magazine)
FreeBooks - from the Institute for Christian Economics
Generations - Radio Program
Home School Heartbeat (Radio program)
LifeWay Homeschool, Southern Baptist Convention - affiliated with HSLDF & NHERI
WorldView Magazine
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Wait, Newby's a female?


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

Newby said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I get what Bod is saying, but its so outrageously hyperbolic to say "Our Founders Modeled our government after the Roman Republic."

The US government was modeled after the British Parliment and British Judiciary minus any monarch, but instead, and elected president.

While the Bicarmeal legislature may have been _theoretically_ "Roman" it never really existed during or after the Roman Republic. Instead it was a medieval invention which eventually controlled the British Government.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Wait, Newby's a female?



Oh yeah, baby....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I never claimed the US was patterned after rome, you nincompoop.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

And once again, nobody claimed the US was a theocracy, either. It is founded on Christian tenets. There's a difference.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And once again, nobody claimed the US was a theocracy, either. It is founded on Christian tenets. There's a difference.



You have not proven your claim.   Christ is not mentioned in any of our Governments documents.  Wishing so don't make it so.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

America was founded on Liberal tenants, people.

Hell, they borrowed whole sentences from Locke.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

1620 - While America has been a nation of Christians, it was not founded to be a Christian nation. Of course, the Pilgrims who arrived in 1620 didn't found the nation. The nation was founded about 150 years later. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin all espoused tolerance ...
From Nation wasn't founded to be Christian nation - docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/BL/lib00107 ... 

 1776 Jul 4, 1776 - On July 4, 1776, a republic established in faith in human ability for self- governance was created by secession from England. Soon its God-free constitution was written, appealing not to alleged revelation but to reason and faith in humanity. Not "a Christian ....  
picasaweb.google.com/Francis.Mortyn ... 

 1787 1787 - The Treaty of Tripoli in 1787, signed by Thomas Jefferson, as well as other government officials specifically states that the US is not a Christian Nation, nor founded on Christian principles.
From A Debate I've Been Stuck In... | Facebook - Related web pages
Welcome to Facebook ... 

 1796 1796 - O'Bannon and the immortal words &#8220;To the shores of Tripoli&#8221, I know that Thomas Jefferson in his Treaty of Tripoli, the first treaty of the United States in 1796, he specifically states that we are not a Christian Nation.As has been pointed out, there is a difference between being a nation of Christians and a Christian Nation. And as a former US Marine having studied the history of the Barbary pirate wars, where US marines served ( Lt. O'Bannon and the immortal words &#8220;To the shores of Tripoli&#8221, I know that Thomas Jefferson in his Treaty of Tripoli, the first treaty of the United States in 1796, he specifically states that we are not a Christian Nation.  
notimefortrivia.com/page/71/?s 

 1797 1797 -  People need to stop claiming the Founding Fathers as a block for one side of the other. They were a diverse lot. They included the religious and the non-religious. They knew that America was a diverse nation and that creating a single religious point of view was neither possible nor desirable.  
Slate -> The Fray -> Fighting Words 

 1892 1892 - In 1892, the US Supreme Court took half of its unanimous opinion to sketch out the Christian roots of America. It's an entire history course, one most Americans alive today never received in government-run schools. The evidence that America is a Christian ...In 1892, the US Supreme Court took half of its unanimous opinion to sketch out the Christian roots of America. It's an entire history course, one most Americans alive today never received in government-run schools. The evidence that America is a Christian nation is overwhelming. Why is there such a vocal minority attempting to refute the claim of the Supreme Court? What do those who say "America is not a Christian nation" hope to gain? Do they want America to be more ...  
From America, a Christian Nation - Christ, the Root of Our Liberties -- KEVIN &#8230; - Related web pages
kevincraig.us/christ.htm 

 1992 Nov 24, 1992 - Kirk Fordice has apologized for his insistence that America is a Christian nation. But the episode highlights once again how intolerance and the refusal to accept diversity are divisive forces that must be left behind. This nation's history is rooted in religious and cultural freedom. ... 
From St. Louis Post-Dispatch: AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/SL/lib00171 ... 

 2003 May 2, 2003 - Christian churches in America are pretty fun places, though, places to entertain us and increase our self esteem. ... How can this happen in a "Christian" nation ? It's maybe because the nation isn't really Christian and hasn'ta clue as to what it means to be Christian. ... 
From We're not a Christian country. (Viewpoint). - Related web pages
goliath.ecnext.com/premium/0199/0199-2917796.html 

 2007 Oct 8, 2007 - By Jon Meacham. Senator John McCain was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University last year for very long - McCain, who once referred to Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance," was there to receive an honorary degree - but he seems to have picked up some ... 
From The US is not a 'Christian nation' - The New York Times - Related web pages
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08iht ... 

 2009 Apr 14, 2009 - Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is? One American doesn't think so. In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: "One of the great strengths of the United States is &#8230; we have a very large Christian population -- we do not ... 
From America is not a Christian nation - Salon.com - Related web pages
www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/04/14 ... 

Google


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And once again, nobody claimed the US was a theocracy, either. It is founded on Christian tenets. There's a difference.
> ...



But Christ doesn't have to be mentioned in any government documents for the government to reflect "Christian Tenets" (which I suppose would be Christ's _Teachings_ as described in the Gospels).

I'm still at a loss to equate any of these teachings with our law, or enforcement, or whatever?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And once again, nobody claimed the US was a theocracy, either. It is founded on Christian tenets. There's a difference.
> ...



I've already made and supported my claim, which is that the US was founded on Christian tenets.

You constantly attempting to change the dialogue into something else in no way proves that the US isn't a Christian nation. First you said the US was modeled after Rome. Rome was a theocracy.

Then it was said the Roman Republic ended before Christ (wtf?). I don't know where that came from, or even what it pertains to. 

Then you said I claimed the US was modeled after Rome. I didn't.

The claim was made that the US wasn't a Christian nation. In the words of our founders and our founding documents, it was.

There's no more argument, it's a done deal. There are facts, and then there is fantasy, and you're operating in fantasy right now.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Samson said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



It's mythology.  There is no evidence that the government of the US was founded on Christian tenets.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Except of course the words of the founders and the Declaration of Independence, which is the first document which presents the US to the world.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Except of course the words of the founders and the Declaration of Independence, which is the first document which presents the US to the world.



But...where does the DoI sound like the Gospels?

"All men are created equal?" Where does Christ say this?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Except of course the words of the founders and the Declaration of Independence, which is the first document which presents the US to the world.



Allie.  Cbrist is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence,( which was before we were a government) and there is not God in the Consitution.

The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that we are NOT a Christian nation.

We are a government of human beings, not supernatural forces.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

The Constitution, the golden standard of American law, never mentions God or even anything about religion (Butler 159). This is considered one of the most secular documents of the modern world (Butler 159). Article six must definitely contribute to this notion; it states that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States (Butler 159). Some argue that the Constitution is an explicitly Christian document. In actuality, Article Six explicitly states that the United States must never be a Christian nation, or any other religious nation for that matter. If this is not convincing, the First Amendment to the Constitution, passed by the first congress in 1791, should be Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Butler 148). Thomas Jefferson made clear his position that the First Amendment was in place to create a wall of separation between church and state (Butler 148).

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was also a very secular document. Although religion did enter the Declaration of Independence its focus was clearly to address the offenses of British politicians. No religious issues were included in the history of repeated injuries and usurpations section of the Declaration (Butler 133). I do not believe this was an accident or that Jefferson somehow forgot to mention them. 

The only religious phrases found in the Declaration of Independence are not specifically Christian. As an example, the phrase the laws of nature and nature's God shows that Jefferson did not think our rights are not given to us by a divine being but rather by the natural law. Divine providence is used to reference that which Americans would rely on for protection (Butler 133). A Supreme Judge of the world who would judge the rectitude of our intentions was also mentioned (Butler 133). God or Christ were never mentioned. 
Young Freethought: America Is Not A Christian Nation


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Samson said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Except of course the words of the founders and the Declaration of Independence, which is the first document which presents the US to the world.
> ...



Why would the DOI sound like the gospel?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Constitution, the golden standard of American law, never mentions God or even anything about religion (Butler 159). This is considered one of the most secular documents of the modern world (Butler 159). Article six must definitely contribute to this notion; it states that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States (Butler 159). Some argue that the Constitution is an explicitly Christian document. In actuality, Article Six explicitly states that the United States must never be a Christian nation, or any other religious nation for that matter. If this is not convincing, the First Amendment to the Constitution, passed by the first congress in 1791, should be Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Butler 148). Thomas Jefferson made clear his position that the First Amendment was in place to create a wall of separation between church and state (Butler 148).
> 
> Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was also a very secular document. Although religion did enter the Declaration of Independence its focus was clearly to address the offenses of British politicians. No religious issues were included in the history of repeated injuries and usurpations section of the Declaration (Butler 133). I do not believe this was an accident or that Jefferson somehow forgot to mention them.
> 
> ...



Only another opinion which flies in the face of the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

This is not, nor ever has been, a Christian nation.

However, the European immigrants and their descendants have overwhelming been Christian.

Thus, the U.S. is a nation of Christians, whose values are often reflected in the local, state, and national laws.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You mentioned the DOI as representative of a document that the founders wrote.

I wondered where in it they'd borrowed from the Gospels, Christ's Teachings, which would give credance to your argument that the founders based the US Government on Christianity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Oh my god.
I refer you back to what I've already said. I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh my god.
> I refer you back to what I've already said. I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over.



Next time offer some evidence with a link.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

I've offered plenty of evidence, and MULTIPLE links, to things other than opinion pieces. To the words of the founders themselves about what they envisioned for our country, and what they were modeling the new country after.

So now you provide some evidence, HARD evidence, that the OP is true, and the US is NOT founded on Christian principles. NOT on the bible, NOT as a theocracy, but that it ISN'T FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES AND TENETS.

Then provide some evidence that the US is NOT a Christian nation. Be sure to provide numbers.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh my god.
> I refer you back to what I've already said. I'm tired of covering the same ground over and over.



It shouldn't be that much of a big hairy deal, should it?

Just quote which part of the DOI is in the Gospels, or vice versa.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba, no, kiddo, no, America was not founded as a Christian nation.

Now go away, please.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Why on earth would I do that? Did I say the Declaration used language from the gospels?
Nope, I didn't. So if you don't mind, I won't waste time looking up stupid shit to justify things I never said because you want me to.

You go ahead, though.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> AllieBaba, no, kiddo, no, America was not founded as a Christian nation.
> 
> Now go away, please.



Yes, it was. 
And it is still a Christian nation.

Now you go away, please.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

You have no evidence, Allie.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Why on earth would I do that? Did I say the Declaration used language from the gospels?
> Nope, I didn't. So if you don't mind, I won't waste time looking up stupid shit to justify things I never said because you want me to.
> 
> You go ahead, though.



Ok let's pretend you never mentioned DOI.

What, if anything, does the US Government have in common with the Gospels?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Bible:

Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the  world. Amen. 



Constitution:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...'


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> 
> Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the  world. Amen.
> 
> ...



See, that would be the _opposite_ of something in the gospels being like what is in the DOI.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> 
> Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the  world. Amen.
> 
> ...



Huh?  Not even close.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Bible:
3 Jesus replied, "And  why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and  'Anyone who  curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 

Constitution:
Excessive bail shall not be  required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments  inflicted.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Bible:
> ...



Wasn't that the point?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Bible:
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on  the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed


Maybe it's a Jewish nation?
And thine eye shall not  pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for  hand, foot for foot.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on  the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> 
> Constitution:
> ...



What's this foot-for-foot crap?

***have we jumped the shark yet***


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Bible:
 13Submit yourselves to  every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king,  as supreme; 
 14Or  unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of  evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.


(see: Divine Right of Kings)


Constitution:
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.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall  not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by  Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be  searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

Ridiculous.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Allie's bullshit: Refuted and debunked.

Thread is completed.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Ridiculous.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Who gave Puke permission to speak? That person needs to step up and take their punishment.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

David Frost: Say is this still a Christian Country?

Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Who gave Puke permission to speak? That person needs to step up and take their punishment.




Anyone else totally unsurprised our favorite beastfucker now wants to suppress the speech of anyone who presents evidence against her?


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Allie's bullshit: Refuted and debunked.
> 
> Thread is completed.



Thank God.

I mean that in the strictest multidisciplinary sense, to include Allah, Buddah, Thor, Zeus, and Halle Berry (who I worship).


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

"If that's all it takes to make a theocracy, then these writers are correct: Contemporary America is run by theocrats. Of course, by that measure, so was the America of every previous era. The United States has always been at once a secular republic and a religious nation, reflexively libertarian and fiercely pious, and this tension has been working itself out in our politics for more than two hundred years. It's often been a mixed blessing, giving us Prohibition as well as abolition, Jesse Jackson as well as Reinhold Niebuhr, the obsession with free silver as well as the zeal for civil rights. But there's no way to give an account of American history without grappling with this tension--and with the role played, for good and ill and sometimes both, by religious reformers from Jonathan Edwards all the way down to Jerry Falwell."

Gosh, did the piece say we've always been a secular AND religious nation?

OUTRAGEOUS!

Ross Douthat -- Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Samson said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Allie's bullshit: Refuted and debunked.
> ...


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.




Depends. 


Do you consider the principles of Liberalism to qualify as a faith?


Surely Manifest destiny was a matter of faith, as is 'all men are created equal'.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.



And the founders stated, ad nauseum, that liberty and freedom come from GOD and nowhere else.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

And, furthermore, because they come from God, they are inviolable.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.
> ...



No they didn't.  A committment to freedom does not come from a specific faith.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And, furthermore, because they come from God, they are inviolable.



My rights as an American come from the Constitution, 'We the people', not your God.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

That has nothing to do with the founding of this country.

This country was founded on Christian principles, first and foremost, that all men are created equal and certain rights come from God.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Besides, sky, your human rights do come from God whether you accept it or not. It's another one of those things where you can opine all you want, but there's still a correct, and a wrong.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> That has nothing to do with the founding of this country.
> 
> This country was founded on Christian principles, first and foremost, that all men are created equal and certain rights come from God.



You can say it all you like, and I'm sure it makes you feel better,  but there is no proof that the US was founded on Christian principles.  The evidence is not in the legal documents in which we found our government.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Besides, sky, your human rights do come from God whether you accept it or not. It's another one of those things where you can opine all you want, but there's still a correct, and a wrong.



That is an arrogant statement and disrespectful of atheists and those of us who practice in non-theist religions.  That's ok.  I don't expect you to respect my faith.  The constitution, a secular document protects me.  We are NOT a Christian nation, thank God.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, sky, your human rights do come from God whether you accept it or not. It's another one of those things where you can opine all you want, but there's still a correct, and a wrong.
> ...



Actually, Christians protect you. And Christians developed this country to protect you based upon Christian tenets.

You have a character flaw and that is that you cannot discern between opinion and fact, Sky. I imagine it causes you problems in life. If I am arrogant because I believe your rights come from God, you are equally arrogant and disrespectful to continue insisting that the US is not a Christian nation and was not built upon Christian values and tenets.

It was. The evidence is there, you are ignoring it. The ultimate in arrogance. Your own narrow mindedness is trumping the truth, and that's sad.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom.
> ...


Tell that to the slaves and the natives


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And, furthermore, because they come from God, they are inviolable.




Which explains the numerous violations in American history....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Shut up, Puke. Nobody wants to listen to your weird spasms.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Allie: [bullshit]

JB: Actually, [facts]

Allie: SHUTUPSHUTUPI'MNOTLISTENINGLALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

I must have missed your facts, silly me.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I was just about to write you and tell you I think you mean no harm.  I suppose you're right.  My assertion that the nation is founded on a secular Constitution seems disrepectful to you as a Christian.

I'm sorry but I don't feel particularly 'protected' by Christians.  I feel protected by the Constitution, a secular document.

You know I don't believe in God, so you telling me my rights come from a supernatural source seems disrespectful to me.

I think you have a good heart, and I consider you a friend.

We just will have to agree to disagree.

I'm happy you don't want the US to be a Christian theocracy.  For me, having you insist that your God beliefs trump mine is a slippery slope in that direction.

Later.


----------



## Samson (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



I think we've made progress here!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



God is clearly able to take care of God without any human's help.

No, this is not a Christian nation, but a nation generally of Christians.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> I must have missed your facts, silly me.




Not surprising. There was a thread regarding studies of your type not that long ago.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Thank you.  Christianity is the predominant religion in America, however our government is secular.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Christianity is ~51% of America, given a very liberal application of the term

Then there are many Universal Roman Pederasts (~25% of Americans and the vast majority of Mexicans, Peurto Ricans and other idiots who take 'pride' in speaking the slavemasters' tongue over that of the free nation to which they come crawling) and some Smithians.

source


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Christianity is ~51% of America, given a very liberal application of the term
> 
> Then there are many Universal Roman Pederasts (~25% of Americans and the vast majority of Mexicans, Peurto Ricans and other idiots who take 'pride' in speaking the slavemasters' tongue over that of the free nation to which they come crawling) and some Smithians.
> 
> source



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

You said


> Christianity is the predominant religion in America



I was clarifying that it's a slim margin and only true if you use a rather liberal definition of 'christian'


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You said
> 
> 
> > Christianity is the predominant religion in America
> ...



Yeah.  There's always that discussion about who is and isn't a 'real' Christian.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You said
> ...



I could claim to be a Liberal, but it'd be a lie.


Besides, the bible himself tells us that many will be deceived by such false prophets and few will walk the straight and narrow path to salvation and righteousness- it's to be expected.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You said
> 
> 
> > Christianity is the predominant religion in America
> ...



You are such a dork when you play this silly card.  By the 'most' liberal definition of Christian, the number is about 83%.

Your definition, JB, does not count.  The denominations' and members' definition of themselves indeed count.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> members' definition of themselves indeed count.




Right... So then I guess Maxine Waters really does believe in liberty and the principles of Locke and Jefferson- after all, she calls herself a Liberal when she'd talking about nationalizing industry 


While we're at it, I'm now a Conservative Christian and am to be known as Saint James of USMB.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

JB, old buddy, you are not the decider.  Neither was Bush.  Hmm.  Are you . . . no, I won't ask because I am afraid of the answer.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, old buddy, you are not the decider.



You're right- God is, and he makes it clear in the Bible that the aforementioned cults are not Christians as they do not believe in and abide by Christ's Word.


----------



## Smartt33 (Jul 13, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



The constitution, as written, and with it's original intent, would protect you. The problem is that liberals have misinterpreted, re-written and redefined all the important parts of it to meet the needs of the government. This places the people, the ones who are supposed to be the government, hanging out to dry. 

It can certainly be a secular document and it also can be a document that protects people of faith.

We Christians ( this may not include all Christians) see the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution as two parts of one meaningful historical statement for the American people. We believe there is a religious as well as a secular foundation to it all. We believe, along with those documents, the Bible. We believe that our rights do come from God, and against them there can be no law. We believe that a large protective factor for this country is written in the Bible. In II Chronicles 7:14 we believe God has given us our marching orders. Unfortunately many, even  most of us have failed in that area. We have not prayer as God has instructed. We have not sought the face of God and repented as God intended. With that in mind, you need to really hope that the Constitution will protect you, unless we Christians wake up, come alive in Him, and do as God has said. 

I believe that is happening right now. I believe Christians around the world are beginning to seek God's face, and turn from our wicked ways, and we are starting to pray in a different kind of way. I believe real Christians are beginning to find each other, and are uniting in Christ for the sake of this great nation.

You don't believe that, I am sure. But our beliefs will not interfere with yours unless the Holy Spirit begins to convict you that there is something real about the God stuff. I assure you that I am convinced that God is alive in me, and is walking with me every day.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 13, 2010)

Let's review...



> *Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents*
> 
> Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered. Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents. This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown *the Bible is by far the most often quoted source* in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.
> 
> ...



Case closed.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on  the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
> 
> Constitution:
> ...





JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> 13Submit yourselves to  every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king,  as supreme;
> 14Or  unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of  evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
> 
> ...





JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> 3 Jesus replied, "And  why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
> 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and  'Anyone who  curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
> 
> ...





JBeukema said:


> Bible:
> 
> Mat 28:20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the  world. Amen.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JB, old buddy, you are not the decider.
> ...



Of course they do.  It merely means you don't believe in antinomianism is all.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Jesus made it all clear 

Abiding by the old law is not only unnecessary, it's impossible (hence the need for Jesus to pay for our sins, since Man is incapable of living a sinless life) and, in some instances a violation the new covenant and God's true will, reveled through the Christ (compare 'tooth for a tooth' and 'turn the other cheek').

The Word makes it clear that acts follow faith, that good works are not a path to salvation but rather the product of the Holy Spirit at work in those who have true accepted Christ (see: you shall know them by their fruits).


To be saved, you must truly accept Jesus' sacrifice and accept the Holy Spirit into your heart. Good works will follow as a sign to all the world of the power and nature of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That has nothing to do with the founding of this country.
> ...



Sky, I suggest you go do some serious reading then, because if you had read letters and other associated documents written by the founders themselves while the country was being established, you would see how very wrong you are.   It's a shame that our history is not being taught but is being covered up and buried to the point that you feel you can make this statement and feel that you are right.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



People practice Christian principles.
Governments do not. Governments practice THE LAW. The Constitution is a secular document. NOT RELIGOUS IN ANY WAY. 
You know it, I know it and everyone with a brain knows it.
This government DOES NOT believe in a particular religion. Governments in America ARE NOT RELIGOUS. The founders SET IT UP THAT WAY. 
Again,you know that and if you refuse to admit it Iwill tell you again and again and again and again.
So how can our government "be founded on Christian principles" if they ARE NOT RELIGOUS?
Why are the facts so hard for you to understand?
Because YOU REFUSE to admit they are the facts.


----------



## editec (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm not even sure what most of us practice and are calling Christianity is really founded on Christianity.

But_ hey_, that's just my take on it.

If it isn't a violation of secular law, and it doesn't scare the horses, I say do what you like.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



They aren't facts. 

And idiot, governments do adhere to Christian principles. 

Read the documents of the founding fathers (fact...they stated they were applying Christian principles. They stated that our governement could not function without the guidance of God.) Read the declaration (fact, it states that rights, liberty, freedom come from GOD). Those are Christian principles. That's a fact.

And who the hell is "they" in "so how can our gov't be founded on christian principles if they ARE NOT RELIGIOUS?" That doesn't even make sense. The founding fathers? They were Christians. If you're not talking about them, I have no idea who you mean by "they".

What ISN'T a fact, and what is a downright lie, is the idiotic assertion that our founding fathers didn't refer to the bible when determining this country's roadmap. What is also a lie is the assertion that we aren't a Christian nation today.

i think half the problem here is that you honestly don't know the definitions of the terms you like to throw around. Theocracy, for example. Republic. TENETS. FOUND. PRINCIPLES. 

Idiot.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



What you can't get around is the Constitution is a secular document.  God is nowhere in that document.  The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that America is not a Christian nation.  The nation was intended to have a secular government so that we could have religious freedom.  We were not founded as a CHRISTIAN nation.  We are a plurality, a republic founded by the people, and for the people, not by God.

If we were none of us would enjoy the religious freedom we no have.  Christianity would be the state religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Oh, and despite the howlings of the anti-Christian lunatics, I have never once said the US was a theocracy. I have never once said the government requires anyone to practice a particular religion. I said our government was founded on Christian principles, and I QUOTED THE FOUNDERS applying those principles. All men are created equal, for example. THAT'S A CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. Inherent rights, that's another example..and another Chrsitian principle. 

The whole idea of being free to worship as one pleases is a CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

But continue to make an idiot of yourself, by all means. It becomes more obvious with each rant that not only are you willfully ignorant of the facts of our founding, you have a limited grasp of the terminology as well.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Sticks and stones. 
I have been under fire, shot at and beaten up. Left for dead. Call me what you want. 
You know that I am right and just proved it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I hope you're not referring to me or Gawdawg as  howling, anti-christian lunatics.  Gadawg is a Christian and I have a lot of Christian friends. 

 You're free to practice Christianity and I Buddhism because America was founded with a secular Constitution, separating Church and State.

I disagree that being free to worship is a Christian principle.  Christians haven't always been friendly toward the spiritual practices of indigenous people telling the Native Americans they were free to practice their religion.   Many of them were forcibly converted.


Sorry Allie.  The government of our country was not founded on the Bible.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

According to the founding fathers and the declaration, you're wrong.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

According to the Constitution, which is the law of our land, you're wrong Allie.  Christ isn't in the Declaration.  We are not founded as a Christian nation, if we were, we'd be a Christian theocracy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

No, I'm not wrong. The declaration is a founding document of this country as well. 

And I don't know how you just disregard the fact that the founders SAID they were applying Christian principles to the structuring of the country.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Allie, I go by the Constitution, the law of the land.  There is no God talk or Christianity in it.

We are the land of the free.  That means religious freedom.  Chiristianity is not particularly about religious freedom.  It's been historically about missions and proselytizing.  Converting others, not respecting their existing religions.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, I'm not wrong. The declaration is a founding document of this country as well.
> 
> And I don't know how you just disregard the fact that the founders SAID they were applying Christian principles to the structuring of the country.



Founders apply Christian principles. You said it and I agree.
The US government and THE LAW does not.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not wrong. The declaration is a founding document of this country as well.
> ...



I can live with that.  The founders crafted the Constitution carefully and left out all God words intentionally to ensure our government would be secular.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Who said they did?
It is still founded on Christian principles. As has been proven repeatedly. There's no question about it.

How do you explain away the comments of the founders, who SAID they were building a country on Christian principles?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Allie.  Read the Consitution.  No God or Christ in there.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time." 

Jefferson thoroughly agreed with Franklin on the corruptions the teachings of Jesus had undergone. "The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities" that it was almost impossible to recapture "its native simplicity and purity." Like Paine, Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. "The day will come," he predicted (wrongly, so far), "when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as "the ravings of a maniac." 

The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of--those that he requested be put on his tombstone--were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally "freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination"--note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the "infidel." The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school. 

http://www.thenation.com/article/our-godless-constitution


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



And I didn't dispute any of that, so your comments are moot.

The road to founding the country as it was founded was absolutely influenced by the christian religious beliefs of the men who created the DOL and the constitution.  The founders stated exactly that in personal letters and correspondance and other documents created as the process was unfolding, as shown by quotes taken from those letters and documents posted a page or two earlier. Really, you people need to educate yourself, all of these original documents and letters are still available in the National Archives in Washington, it's not something that you can dispute to anyone who has been there and seen them and read them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Allie, I go by the Constitution, the law of the land.  There is no God talk or Christianity in it.
> 
> We are the land of the free.  That means religious freedom.  Chiristianity is not particularly about religious freedom.  It's been historically about missions and proselytizing.  Converting others, not respecting their existing religions.



Except the CONSTITUTION isn't what determines the principles upon which this country was founded.

The principles upon which this country was founded are the principles the founders considered while creating the structure.

WRONG PREMISE, Sky. That's what I keep telling you. You're not answering the right question, so of COURSE your answer is wrong.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

And they're the principles people still use today when considering things like freedom, liberty, human rights, btw.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You're stuck on the Constitution itself, and it was done exactly so that it would not have religious affiliation.  That does not mean that their christian beliefs and their knowledge of the Bible did not influence how and why they did what they did.  There are hundreds of letters and other documents in the national archives which proves that they absolutely relied on their beliefs to found this country.  I don't know the exact number, but something like 2/3 or more of the founding fathers held seminary degrees, they were pastors.  The very first act of the very first Congress at the very first session was to pray for several hours.  It's documented in the national archives, look it up.  The very first Bible printed in the United States and distributed was done so by the US Congress, also in the national archives, look it up.  The men who founded this country were christians, and they used their backgrounds and influences to create the founding documents, they stated so in letters written to each other and to family members and the public in general, all available in the national archives.  To continue to state that it's not so withou doing the research seems a bit hard headed to me.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not wrong. The declaration is a founding document of this country as well.
> ...



And it was designed that way BECAUSE of their christian principles, which is what Sky is denying.  There is irrefutable evidence to show that what she is claiming is not true in the national archives.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm not giving up my religious freedom.  I enjoy that freedom due to the secular government formed by the Constitution, a secular document.  A Christian theocracy is not gonna happen in my lifetime.  Gadawg is the only Christian that seems to understand why its important to separate church and state.

Christian principle is to render to Caesar that which is Caesars.  Separation of church and state preserves religous freedom for all of us, not just Christians.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2010)

Church and state must be separated to ensure the citizens' civil liberties.  That is why Christians and deists formed together to create a secular government informed by religious and ethical values.  The first step was the banning a national church.  The second step was the elimination of state churches.  The third step, an ongoing process, is to keep church and state (not state and value) separated.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Church and state must be separated to ensure the citizens' civil liberties.  That is why Christians and deists formed together to create a secular government informed by religious and ethical values.  The first step was the banning a national church.  The second step was the elimination of state churches.  The third step, an ongoing process, is to keep church and state (not state and value) separated.



Some would like to undo the founders efforts to keep church and state separate.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Church and state must be separated to ensure the citizens' civil liberties.  That is why Christians and deists formed together to create a secular government informed by religious and ethical values.  The first step was the banning a national church.  The second step was the elimination of state churches.  The third step, an ongoing process, is to keep church and state (not state and value) separated.
> ...



What's the percentage of citizens that wish to do this? You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and over exaggerating any fear that this is going to ever happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2010)

The Christian dominationists are as evil in their motivation as the far rightists and the far leftists in America.  These beliefs and lifestyles are devoted to removing the free will of the American citizen.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

That's asinine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba, as if you think you can reach out and touch me.  You fool.  Christian Dominationists are the religious scum of America, at the level of the murderous racists of the Aryan white churches.  Take a hike, AB, and keep walking.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> No, I'm not wrong. The declaration is a founding document of this country as well.
> 
> And I don't know how you just disregard the fact that the founders SAID they were applying Christian principles to the structuring of the country.



A founding document yes.   A basis for our government, no.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Who said they did?
> It is still founded on Christian principles. As has been proven repeatedly. There's no question about it.
> 
> How do you explain away the comments of the founders, who SAID they were building a country on Christian principles?



What christian principles?    Please be specific.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Who said they did?
> ...



Read their own words, it's pretty well documented and as I have said ad nauseum, in the national archives.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



An estimated 35 million is what I've read but that's just a conspiracy theory.  The Dominionists are a fringe group of Christian fanatics.  Let's make sure they stay fringe.  For some of us, it isn't that far a leap to think it's a larger group due to the size of the policized Christian right.

Evangelicals constitute a rather large group.


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



You seriously believe this shit?  Dominionists?  Seriously?

Tinfoil hat time apparently. 

The Despoiling Of America



> The Despoiling of America
> 
> How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Who calls them diminionists?  Do they themselves, or is that what they've been labeled by the left wing nutcase types like the person that wrote that fantasy article above?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



They call themselves Domininists--Christian Reconstructionists.  They exist, though probably not in the numbers some of the articles claim.
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/dominionism.html#whatis


----------



## Care4all (Jul 14, 2010)

last night, i was doing a search on our founding fathers and Christianity etc, and I came up with this article from some Pastor somewhere?

and He argues that what our founding fathers did WAS NOT CHRISTIAN LIKE and we are clueless christians to the word of God, if we think that they were or their actions were....  very interesting article and the complete OPPOSITE of what I had been arguing and thought...

AMERICAS REBELLIOUS HEART


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Care4all said:


> last night, i was doing a search on our founding fathers and Christianity etc, and I came up with this article from some Pastor somewhere?
> 
> and He argues that what our founding fathers did WAS NOT CHRISTIAN LIKE and we are clueless christians to the word of God, if we think that they were or their actions were....  very interesting article and the complete OPPOSITE of what I had been arguing and thought...
> 
> AMERICAS REBELLIOUS HEART



Would you explain further in your own words.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

Care4all said:


> last night, i was doing a search on our founding fathers and Christianity etc, and I came up with this article from some Pastor somewhere?
> 
> and He argues that what our founding fathers did WAS NOT CHRISTIAN LIKE and we are clueless christians to the word of God, if we think that they were or their actions were....  very interesting article and the complete OPPOSITE of what I had been arguing and thought...
> 
> AMERICAS REBELLIOUS HEART



The Founders were radicals of their time. The religous community supported the Torries, not these radicals rebelling against the divine powers annointed by God to the crown monarchy.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Theocratic dominionism

The terms Theocratic Dominionism or Hard Dominionism, describe forms of Dominion Theology, a religious trend that arose in the 1970s as a series of small Christian movements that seek to establish a theocratic form of government. In the United States, a very doctrinaire version of Hard Dominionism is Christian Reconstructionism, a theonomic movement that seeks to replace the secular governance model, and subsequently the U.S. Constitution, creating a political and judicial system based on Old Testament Law, or Mosaic Law.

Critics of the theocratic versions of dominionism often lump all the variants together, and use the terms Dominionism, Dominion Theology, and Christian Reconstructionism almost interchangeably, but this is problematic. For example, all Christian Reconstructionists are Dominionists, but not all Dominionists are Christian Reconstructionists.

Dominionists often argue that the United States was originally envisioned as a society based on Biblical law. 

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

None of that has anything to do with whether or not our founders were using Christian principles to guide them.

They were. They said they were. You can argue semantics all you like, and say now that they were challenged (as Christians) by the strong churches of the time. It doesn't matter. They still built a government based on their own Christian ideals.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Allie-

Many of the founders (but not all, some were Deists, some Unitarian) were Christian.  The Constitution is a secular document.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Except we weren't arguing whether or not the constitution was a secular document.
The argument was whether or not our country was built upon Christian values, and whether it remains Christian.

It was, and it does.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Except we weren't arguing whether or not the constitution was a secular document.
> The argument was whether or not our country was built upon Christian values, and whether it remains Christian.
> 
> It was, and it does.



I'm arguing that the United States of America is a secular society.  I base that claim on the Constitution, a secular document which is the law of our land.

I agree that some of the Founders were Christian and that undoubtedly informed their worldview.  Religion was tempered by reason and the Enlightenment.  Consequently, we are not a Christian nation, but a secular society with freedom of religion.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the government of the US was built on Christian values.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

You have changed the argument so that you can fit your view into it. In other words, you changed the goal posts.

The original argument was whether or not the US was Christian. It is.

You now state that the argument is whether or not the constitution is Christian. That has nothing to do with the original argument. You want to narrow the argument, so you can force it into your answer.

If the original argument was "the constitution by itself is secular" I imagine that would float.

But that wasn't the original argument. We weren't discussing the constitution. We're discussing whether or not the country was built upon Christian values (and IT WAS) and whether or not the country (as in THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE) are Christian. They are.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg says it best:

"Founders apply Christian principles. You said it and I agree.
The US government and THE LAW does not." 


I agree with this statement.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You have changed the argument so that you can fit your view into it. In other words, you changed the goal posts.
> 
> The original argument was whether or not the US was Christian. It is.
> 
> ...



I have already conceded that we could call the US a Christian country due to the number of Christians in America.

Our government is secular.  You haven't provided any convincing evidence to the contrary.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

My contention was that we were founded upon Christian values, and we're a Christian nation. I proved that.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

No.  You didn't prove it Allie.  You've repeated it alot, but haven't provided any evidence that the US government was founded upon Christianity.

I've provided several documents, the Treaty of Tripoli and the Constitution itself as proof that the US was NOT founded on Christianity.

I would add that there is no Christianity in the Declaration either.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Look, Sky, I can't make you believe something you refuse to believe. I did prove it. You won't accept it, and you haven't even referenced it. I've asked you repeatedly how you manage to ignore the founders' own words about what they were building the country on, and you haven't answered. Because that's what you've done. Ignore. The founders (the FOUNDERS. They FOUNDED the country). said a free country could not take place without the guidance of God. They say in the Declaration of Independence, where they give their REASONS for breaking from England, that GOD gives men rights, and they are going to build a new country to see to it that those rights are provided to men. They discussed it among themselves, and with their families, with the churches of the day. Those documents remain, and provide the proof that they were intent on building a country on Christian values.

And you ignore it and continue to parrot that the founding fathers weren't Christian and our country wasn't founded on Christian principles.
I can't do much with that. Nobody can. It's willfull ignorance, and you seem to be proud of it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Look, Sky, I can't make you believe something you refuse to believe. I did prove it. You won't accept it, and you haven't even referenced it. I've asked you repeatedly how you manage to ignore the founders' own words about what they were building the country on, and you haven't answered. Because that's what you've done. Ignore. The founders (the FOUNDERS. They FOUNDED the country). said a free country could not take place without the guidance of God. They say in the Declaration of Independence, where they give their REASONS for breaking from England, that GOD gives men rights, and they are going to build a new country to see to it that those rights are provided to men. They discussed it among themselves, and with their families, with the churches of the day. Those documents remain, and provide the proof that they were intent on building a country on Christian values.
> 
> And you ignore it and continue to parrot that the founding fathers weren't Christian and our country wasn't founded on Christian principles.
> I can't do much with that. Nobody can. It's willfull ignorance, and you seem to be proud of it.



The government is secular.  Period.  You've ignored the Treaty of Tripoli that clearly states that America is NOT a Christian nation.  I've conceded that many of the founders were Christian men.   What I don't find in any of the legal documents of the US is any claim to Christianity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Who cares? That wasn't the argument.
The country is Christian.
And it was built upon Christian values.
Period.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 14, 2010)

The United States government is secular.   I cite the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence.

No Christ mentioned in any of those documents.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Except we weren't arguing whether or not the constitution was a secular document.
> The argument was whether or not our country was built upon Christian values, and whether it remains Christian.
> 
> It was, and it does.



No, your story has changed. It was our nation was founded on Christian principles.
And it wasn't and you know it so now your thesis is "built".
Big difference. 
But they both are wrong. This nation was built by HARD WORK, freedom and free thought.
Not religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The United States government is secular.   I cite the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence.
> 
> No Christ mentioned in any of those documents.



Who are you arguing with?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Except we weren't arguing whether or not the constitution was a secular document.
> ...



My story has been all along that it was founded on Christian principles.
Which is of course correct.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 14, 2010)

Allie, let me appeal to your reason and common sense:
1. No where in the Constitution does it appeal to God, Jesus, Christianity or ANY supreme being. Why is that? 
2. The US Constitution clearly states in the preamble "We the people". The omission of God did not come out of them forgetting to include God. That was out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intention to keep government SEPERATE from religion. 
3. You keep posting about the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that "all men are created equal" and "to secure those rights, governments are instituted amongst MEN"  The Declaration of Independence SAYS NOTHING about our rights or any rights secured by Christianity. The Declaration of Independence makes no mention of a personal God of Christianity. Jefferson describes it as "the laws of nature and of Nature's God". Allie, that is clearly deist speak of the day. Everyone knows that.
4. The Treaty of Tripoli clearly states by many of the Founders that we are not a nation founded on Christianity. John Adams signed it in 1790 and you claim we were founded when he stated we were not. Respectfully Allie, I believe John Adams and not you. 

If you better understood the concept of seperation of church and state you would see that this PROTECTS your, and all, religion. The free expression of those that are religous and those that are not is allowed by a secular government. A religous government never tolerates that. 
In today's America, religion flourishes. We have more churches than fast food restaurants. 
No one that I know that is an atheist or non believer wants to ban or eliminate religion from society. That is a myth. Keeping church and state allows any religion or atheist, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs, to practice their beliefs freely WITHOUT government intervention.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Allie, let me appeal to your reason and common sense:
> 1. No where in the Constitution does it appeal to God, Jesus, Christianity or ANY supreme being. Why is that?
> 2. The US Constitution clearly states in the preamble "We the people". The omission of God did not come out of them forgetting to include God. That was out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intention to keep government SEPERATE from religion.
> 3. You keep posting about the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that "all men are created equal" and "to secure those rights, governments are instituted amongst MEN"  The Declaration of Independence SAYS NOTHING about our rights or any rights secured by Christianity. The Declaration of Independence makes no mention of a personal God of Christianity. Jefferson describes it as "the laws of nature and of Nature's God". Allie, that is clearly deist speak of the day. Everyone knows that.
> ...



Separation of church and state does protect religion. I'm the one who continually carps on that here, stating that said separation exists to protect religion. Hence it is a disservice to freedom of religion and liberty to insist that separation of church and state means we are PREVENTED from incorporating our religion into all aspects of our lives if we so desire.

That is NOT to say we should legislate religion, I have never said that and never will. But the idea that we can't refer to our religion in any meaningful manner outside of our homes and church goes diametrically against everything our founders meant to protect.

The founding fathers SAID they were basing the concept of a free country upon the concept of a heavenly father who provides us with human rights which no man has the right to remove from us. 

That means we're based on Christian principles.

I'm not saying we should be a theocracy. I'm not saying we should or ever have legislated religion, of course we haven't. But the concepts of a free republic as our founders saw it is based on Christian tenets. According to them. And confirmed in the declaration.


----------



## Intense (Jul 14, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Allie, let me appeal to your reason and common sense:
> 1. No where in the Constitution does it appeal to God, Jesus, Christianity or ANY supreme being. Why is that?
> 2. The US Constitution clearly states in the preamble "We the people". The omission of God did not come out of them forgetting to include God. That was out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intention to keep government SEPERATE from religion.
> 3. You keep posting about the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that "all men are created equal" and "to secure those rights, governments are instituted amongst MEN"  The Declaration of Independence SAYS NOTHING about our rights or any rights secured by Christianity. The Declaration of Independence makes no mention of a personal God of Christianity. Jefferson describes it as "the laws of nature and of Nature's God". Allie, that is clearly deist speak of the day. Everyone knows that.
> ...



Good arguments, you might want to read up more on Locke though. Not about him, but his words.

He was a Christian, though a different breed. He did share with us, "Separation of Church and State", "Life, Liberty, And Property" (Life , Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness) as a defense against Tyranny. Non-Violent civil disobedience, and so much more. These are Christian principles. 

51.  A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689)  Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.
52.  Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690)  Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.


What year were we founded as a Nation? 

What Year did we adopt "The Constitution" as the supreme law of the land? 

Have you studied the original State Constitutions in relation to God and Religion?

Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

And deists of the 18th century were still Christians, btw.


----------



## Intense (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Allie, let me appeal to your reason and common sense:
> ...



Agreed. Besides the fact that we do not want the Church deciding about property and material things, we do not want the government deciding about issues of salvation. Plain and simple. When Madison defined the separation, he told us to put God first in matters of conscience. It is an individual matter that cannot be forced or legislated. Some fear what they cannot control in others, and rather than find peace in liberty, seek to scheme and force control over others. There are matters government has no right to control. Jefferson, Madison, Thoreau, King, Gandhi, knew that. Why must we turn backwards? Progressive seems more and more an oxymoron.


----------



## Intense (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And deists of the 18th century were still Christians, btw.



Some. There were principles they held on to. Dogma was not their friend. Who would use scripture to manipulate and serve personal interest to the harm of others.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

Newby said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Their very interpretation of their brand of neoxtinity was grounded in Liberalism more than anything else.


As I've shown, the Constitution has little, if anything, in common with the bible- it much more closely resembles the writings of Locke.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> [
> The whole idea of being free to worship as one pleases is a CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.



Right... religious tolerance is based on belief in the same god who declared we should suffer not a witch to live 


> But continue to make an idiot of yourself, by all means.





The American Constitution is grounded in Liberal principles.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And they're the principles people still use today when considering things like freedom, liberty, human rights, btw.




O Rly?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Except we weren't arguing whether or not the constitution was a secular document.
> The argument was whether or not our country was built upon Christian values, and whether it remains Christian.
> 
> It was, and it does.




It was founded on Liberal values.


Read Locke and compare.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> My contention was that we were founded upon Christian values, and we're a Christian nation. I proved that.





Fail.


I showed you the bible and the Constitution- zero matches on values and principles.

Now, compare the Constitution to the Second Treatise..


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

Intense said:


> 51.  A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689)  Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.


-so long as they were neoxitans, too




> 52.  Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690)  Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.



Exactly- We the People = the social contract. This is mutually exclusive with xtianity (specifically 1 Peter 2:13-17)

Locke is regarded as one of the major formers of the ideology of Liberalism, and it was upon these Liberal principles, rather than on Christian teachings, that the nation was founded and its form moulded.  

Hence the nation was not founded upon Christianity, but upon Liberalism.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 14, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> And deists of the 18th century were still Christians, btw.


Clearly, you don't understand what deism is.


----------



## Smartt33 (Jul 14, 2010)

The founding fathers if America were a deeply repligious people. The separation that they fought for was that the government would NOT be able to interfere with our religious freesoms.  I don't think that can be denied with any intelligence. 

From where this great nation began, to where she is today is a shameful disgrace to the founding fathers. 

In the current state of affairs of this nation, God certainly is not being allowed to have any part, if the government has it's way. That is the opposite of what the founders intended. Look at the monuments, and rich religious history of the nation just once with an open mind. You will see that all religions were acknowledged, but the Christian faith is engraved deeply in these monuments, and our history. 

Today God is being dishonored by our government. Our founders prayed whil doing government tasks and writing laws. Our founders made God a part of what they were doing, and depended upon Him to guide them (for the most part). 

The founders never wanted a theocracy, and I know of no Christians who are seeking to establich one, at lease no Christians who have the support of mainstream Christianity.  A few radicals maybe. There are a few radicals who want the Muslims to be the power in America, among them is our so called president. 

Yes, God was with us as this nation was being birthed. God has blessed this nation for 200 years. Now He doesn't belong, and I believe His mighty hand of protection has been lifted. We Christians need to get back toi the task at hand. That is to seek the face of God, repent and turn from our wicked ways, and allow God to move in us in His mighty power to restore America to the status of the blessed.


----------



## Christopher (Jul 14, 2010)

It seems that many of the same points are being repeated in this thread.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 14, 2010)

you think?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 15, 2010)

Smartt33 said:


> The founding fathers if America were a deeply repligious people. The separation that they fought for was that the government would NOT be able to interfere with our religious freesoms.  I don't think that can be denied with any intelligence.
> 
> From where this great nation began, to where she is today is a shameful disgrace to the founding fathers.
> 
> ...



Hog wash. 
Your one paragraph is correct as I also believe that we Christians do not want a theocracy.
Where do you live? There are more churches around here than fast food restaurants.
Talk to God about the deficit, terrorism and education. Ask him to fix all three and get back to me.
God has no place in government. If so, who's God?


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > 51.  A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689)  Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.
> ...



Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith  for everyone is orthodox to himself  these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so."[1] The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. It is in vain for any man to unsurp the name of Christian, without holiness of life, purity of manners, benignity and meekness of spirit. "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity."[2] "Thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," said our Lord to Peter.[3] It would, indeed, be very hard for one that appears careless about his own salvation to persuade me that he were extremely concerned for mine.  -John Locke   

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 15, 2010)

Intense said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Locke was truly the first maverick of the time in the world of Christian theology of his day. Toleration was not part of any religous or monarchial circle or more of his time yet he stood for what he believed was his vision of leading his life in a Christlike manner. 
I believe the Founders were the same. However, that toleration of their time included tolerating those that wanted NO influence of religion in government and The Constitution reflects that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Let's use our heads, folks.  Nobody is putting God out of anything.  Sheesh, what a stupid ass belief.  However, the law does put the religious entity and organization, the church, out of the school, etc.  That is most appropriate.

Many of the Foundes, including Jefferson and Washington and Adams and Madison, would be quite satisfied with the separation of church and state today.  John Jay and Patrick Henry would not be happy with this.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 15, 2010)

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins "We the people," and contains no mention of "God," "Jesus," or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the "no religious test" clause (Article VI), and "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (First Amendment) 

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words "under God" did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Similarly, "In God we Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is "E Pluribus Unum" ("Of Many, One") celebrating plurality and diversity. 

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 15, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



And let's not forget that John Locke had to be very, very careful in how he framed his arguments due to the possibilities that his own government could have censored him or worse.   As it was, he tread a very fine line.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church.  What a magnificient accomplishment!


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church.  What a magnificient accomplishment!



Thank God for that.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 15, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Thank God for that.





  What God???


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 15, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Thank God for that.
> ...



It's a joke.  I don't believe in God.


----------



## Valerie (Jul 15, 2010)

Hence my laughter!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Smartt33 said:
> 
> 
> > The founding fathers if America were a deeply repligious people. The separation that they fought for was that the government would NOT be able to interfere with our religious freesoms.  I don't think that can be denied with any intelligence.
> ...



NOBODY HAS SAID WE WANT OR ARE A THEOCRACY

Dumbshit. This sort of persistent idiocy is why the same things get said over and over.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church.  What a magnificient accomplishment!



Thank goodness the Christians who founded the country understood that in order to protect religious freedom, they couldn't impose a state religion.

One of the more wonderful Chrsitian tenets. Free will and all that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity, but that's fine, that's part of our secular law: to be free of religion and from religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

No, our law is made to protect people of faith. To allow them to worship as they please.

People without faith have never been persecuted. It's always been those who insist on adhering to a religion other than the state religion.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

Intense said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...




A revisionist perspective that, while fitting his overall ideology, is at odds with both Old and New testament teachings.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not forget also that the U.S. was the first nation in the modern world to not have an established church.  What a magnificient accomplishment!
> ...




Wait, so now secularism is a Christian tenet?

That's a stretch.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

The FF are corpses, not kings or gods.

Just because they did something doesn't make it good.

Remember slavery? Surely, if the FF had slaves and the nation's economy was so heavily based on slavery, slavery must be a good thing and the only truly American thing to do would be to re-institute it, right?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

We aren't talking about their degree of goodness.
The debate is whether or not the country was founded on Christian values.
To determine that, you go to the horse's mouth. The founders.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, liberty is a Christian tenet.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...







Really? The entire premise of the religion if that if you don't bow down before the King (of Kings), you don't just die, you get tortured. For eternity. With no end.

That's not liberty. That's tyranny.

Even the Christian concept of heaven is as illiberal as it gets, with the King ruling absolutely, his son's throne at his right side, and the greatest reawrd one can receive to be the closest little subject kneeling at his feet. It's also a racist system, in which one race is given special treatment (the 14400 will all be of the Jewish tribes). Also, noone will be married nor will they be given in marriage- not only are gays not free to take their loved ones as spouses, nooone is. You are wed only to your King.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in deity



That's OK, JB.  I understand your confusion.  Philosophy simply can't disprove deity, so it takes more faith to belief in that than to believe in deity, which has manifested its proof in philosophy and acts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Liberty is a tenant of modern liberalism, which the far right conloons try to deny.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...






Deity manifested in acts?

Evidence?

As for your total ignorance of what atheism and gnosticism are, 

Let me google that for you


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


Clarify. What, exactly, do you refer to a 'modern liberalism'? Many who coopt the term these days are more progressives or democratic socialists than they are Liberals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I understand that you don't grasp philosophical investigation and logic.  That's OK.  Perhaps one day you will.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china  teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be  able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the  teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.  But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be  disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason  to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If,  however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books,  taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of  children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become  a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the  psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier  time


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



You must research for yourself to develop informed opinion.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...






You assert that non-belief in a thing is a faith, and you accuse someone else of not grasping the matter?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

I assert you don't understand basic principles because of your bias, which is obviously emotional and unstable.

That's OK, but denying what is does not help you at all.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


In other words, you just make shit up and won't defend it.

You say 'modern liberalism'. That term is generally used to refer to those who use the term today. Many are not Liberals and are quite _illiberal_ in their positions. Yet you claim a tenant of their position is liberty. This makes you a retard. I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and letting you specify what _you_ were calling 'modern liberalism', but you can't defend your statement.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> I assert you don't understand basic principles because of your bias, which is obviously emotional and unstable.
> 
> That's OK, but denying what is does not help you at all.










Why do you make statements you won't defend?


Face it, you were debunked. Gnositicism is a matter of faith. Atheism is not.

By definition


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

No, it means JB that you are not as sharp as you think that you are.

That's OK.

I am comfortable with investigation, and I certainly know when I read nonsense, which you put out from time to time.

Other matters, where you are rational, you are fun to read, and I agree with you often.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Atheism, ipso facto, is faith based, because you cannot develop empirical evidence to debunk it.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

You assert that non-belief is a matter of faith. You are wrong by definition. Follow the links.


Your vocabulary lesson for today:
theism
atheism
gnosticism
agnosticism
strong atheism
weak atheism
gnostic atheism
agnostic atheism
gnostic theism
agnostic theism

Come back when you know what you're talking about


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheism, ipso facto, is faith based, because you cannot develop empirical evidence to debunk it.



Fail. You can't prove or disprove a non-claim. A non-claim is no subject to such things.

'I do not believe the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh exists' is not a claim as to whether the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh exists'.

It is not the same as saying 'the whofnaiddlskhfdsofsdkuh does not exist'.

Go do your vocabulary homework and come back when you have a clue


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

You are going about this backwards.

Religion is faith based.

Atheism is faith based, because it cannot develop an empirical model to debunk religious faith.

The best you can come up with is an agnostic model.

You need to get your emotion out of the way.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 15, 2010)

alliebaba said:


> no, our law is made to protect people of faith. To allow them to worship as they please.
> 
> *people without faith have never been persecuted.* it's always been those who insist on adhering to a religion other than the state religion.



bs


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are going about this backwards.
> 
> Religion is faith based.
> 
> ...


Once again, you fail. Noone has to bother debunking your religion. You make a claim _x_ exists, you bear the burden on proof.

I refer you once again to the teapot.

Non-belief cannot be faith-based because it makes no assertions, it's not a claim, it is, by definition, a non-belief, a non-statement, a non-claim. 


> The best you can come up with is an agnostic model.



You fail again.


Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They often are found together, as they address to very different questions. Go follow the links, do your vocabulary homework and come back when you know what you're talking about.


But you won't, because the fact challenge your faith, including the belief you've you've been programmed to hold that leads you to label anything as 'faith' so you can assert, despite the facts, that reality is equal to your delusion. To challenge that brainwashing is a fight for your soul, which you've placed alongside your reason and intellect upon the alter of your religion. Facts don't matter to you anymore and you will not only deny them, but become even further entrenched in your willful ignorance, You're not the first. Arthur Koestler [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-That-Failed-Arthur-Koestler/dp/0231123957?tag=amaz98-20"]describes his going through the same thing you are now[/ame] when he placed his own reason and intellect upon the alter of faith in the name of grand promise, intellectual laziness, and bliss.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

bodecea said:


> alliebaba said:
> 
> 
> > no, our law is made to protect people of faith. To allow them to worship as they please.
> ...



Tell AllieBaba that is absolutely nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Your philosophical argument for atheism is based on a non-starter.  You can't prove that God does not exist, yet you claim that God does not exist.  That is faith, JB, and I will leave you to the last word.


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, it means JB that you are not as sharp as you think that you are.
> 
> That's OK.
> 
> ...



Are all Federal Pay Checks nonsense, or just yours???


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, it means JB that you are not as sharp as you think that you are.
> ...



Intense, daveman is the only person here on a federal pay check that I know of.  Several of us have military and disability checks that we earned protecting your freedoms.  I have been engaged in private business for twenty years, and pay my own way without problem.

How about you?


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You assert that non-belief is a matter of faith. You are wrong by definition. Follow the links.
> 
> 
> Your vocabulary lesson for today:
> ...




Here's for some sober reading. Follow the links for further study. 

Types of theism
But passing from views that are formally anti-theistic, it is found that among Theists themselves certain differences exist which tend to complicate the problem, and increase the difficulty of stating it briefly and clearly. Some of these differences are brief and clear. 

Some of these differences are merely formal and accidental and do not affect the substance of the theistic thesis, but others are of substantial importance, as, for instance, whether we can validly establish the truth of God's existence by the same kind of rational inference (e.g. from effect to cause) as we employ in other departments of knowledge, or whether, in order to justify our belief in this truth, we must not rather rely on some transcendental principle or axiom, superior and antecedent to dialectical reasoning; or on immediate intuition; or on some moral, sentimental, emotional, or æsthetic instinct or perception, which is voluntary rather than intellectual. 

Kant denied in the name of "pure reason" the inferential validity of the classical theistic proofs, while in the name of "practical reason" he postulated God's existence as an implicate of the moral law, and Kant's method has been followed or imitated by many Theists  by some who fully agree with him in rejecting the classical arguments; by others, who, without going so far, believe in the apologetical expediency of trying to persuade rather than convince men to be Theists. A moderate reaction against the too rigidly mathematical intellectualism of Descartes was to be welcomed, but the Kantian reaction by its excesses has injured the cause of Theism and helped forward the cause of anti-theistic philosophy. Herbert Spencer, as is well known, borrowed most of his arguments for Agnosticism from Hamilton and Mansel, who had popularized Kantian criticism in England, while in trying to improve on Kant's reconstructive transcendentalism, his German disciples (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) drifted into Pantheism. Kant also helped to prepare the way for the total disparagement of human reason in relation to religious truth, which constitutes the negative side of Traditionalism, while the appeal of that system on the positive side to the common consent and tradition of mankind as the chief or sole criterion of truth and more especially of religious truth  its authority as a criterion being traced ultimately to a positive Divine revelation  is, like Kant's refuge in practical reason, merely an illogical attempt to escape from Agnosticism. 
Again, though Ontologism  like that of Malebranche (d. 1715)  is older than Kant, its revival in the nineteenth century (by Gioberti, Rosmini, and others) has been inspired to some extent by Kantian influences. This system maintains that we have naturally some immediate consciousness, however dim at first, or some intuitive knowledge of God  not indeed that we see Him in His essence face to face but that we know Him in His relation to creatures by the same act of cognition  according to Rosmini, as we become conscious of being in general  and therefore that the truth of His existence is as much a datum of philosophy as is the abstract idea of being. 

Finally, the philosophy of Modernism  about which there has recently been such a stir  is a somewhat complex medley of these various systems and tendencies; its main features as a system are: 

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God



(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God). 

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26, c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic. 

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past than a critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; and though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876): 

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God. 
Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship. 

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning. 

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Atheism



Gnosticism
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be: 

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.

However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost. 

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gnosticism



(1) The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas. As first employed by Huxley, the new term suggested the contrast between his own unpretentious ignorance and the vain knowledge which the Gnostics of the second and third century claimed to possess. This antithesis served to discredit the conclusions of natural theology, or theistic reasoning, by classing them with the idle vapourings of Gnosticism. The classification was unfair, the attempted antithesis overdrawn. It is rather the Gnostic and the Agnostic who are the real extremists; the former extending the bounds of knowledge, and the latter narrowing them, unduly. Natural theology, or theism, occupies the middle ground between these extremes, and should have been disassociated both from the Gnostic position, that the mind can know everything, and from the Agnostic position, that it can know nothing concerning the truths of religion. (See GNOSTICISM.) 

(2) Agnosticism, as a general term in philosophy, is frequently employed to express any conscious attitude of doubt, denial, or disbelief, towards some, or even all, of man's powers of knowing or objects of knowledge. The meaning of the term may accordingly vary, like that of the other word "Scepticism", which it has largely replaced, from partial to complete Agnosticism; it may be our knowledge of the world, of the self, or of God, that is questioned; or it may be the knowableness of all three, and the validity of any knowledge, whether of sense or intellect, science or philosophy, history, ethics, religion. The variable element in the term is the group of objects, or propositions, to which it refers; the invariable element, the attitude of learned ignorance it always implies towards the possibility of acquiring knowledge. 

(3) Agnosticism, as a term of modern philosophy, is used to describe those theories of the limitations of human knowledge which deny the constitutional ability of the mind to know reality and conclude with the recognition of an intrinsically Unknowable. The existence of "absolute reality" is usually affirmed while, at the same time, its knowableness is denied. Kant, Hamilton, Mansel, and Spencer make this affirmation an integral part of their philosophic systems. The Phenomenalists, however, deny the assertion outright, while the Positivists, Comte and Mill, suspend judgment concerning the existence of "something beyond phenomena". (See POSITIVISM.) 

(4) Modern Agnosticism differs from its ancient prototype. Its genesis is not due to a reactionary spirit of protest, and a collection of sceptical arguments, against "dogmatic systems" of philosophy in vogue, so much as to an adverse criticism of man's knowing-powers in answer to the fundamental question: What can we know? Kant, who was the first to raise this question, in his memorable reply to Hume, answered it by a distinction between "knowable phenomena" and "unknowable things-in-themselves". Hamilton soon followed with his doctrine that "we know only the relations of things". Modern Agnosticism is thus closely associated with Kant's distinction and Hamilton's principle of relativity. It asserts our inability to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, or religious ideas. 

(5) Agnosticism, with special reference to theology, is a name for any theory which denies that it is possible for man to acquire knowledge of God. It may assume either a religious or an anti-religious form, according as it is confined to a criticism of rational knowledge or extended to a criticism of belief. De Bonald (1754-1840), in his theory that language is of divine origin, containing, preserving, and transmitting the primitive revelation of Good to man; De Lammenais (1782-1854), in his theory that individual reason is powerless, and social reason alone competent; Bonetty (1798-1879), in his advocacy of faith in God, the Scriptures, and the Church, afford instances of Catholic theologians attempting to combine belief in moral and religious truths with the denial that valid knowledge of the same is attainable by reason apart from revelation and tradition. To these systems of Fideism and Traditionalism should be added the theory of Mansel (1820-71), which Spencer regarded as a confession of Agnosticism, that the very inability of reason to know the being and attributes of God proves that revelation is necessary to supplement the mind's shortcomings. This attitude of criticising knowledge, but not faith, was also a feature of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy. (See FIDEISM and TRADITIONALISM.) 
(6) The extreme view that knowledge of God is impossible, even with the aid of revelation, is the latest form of religious Agnosticism. The new theory regards religion and science as two distinct and separate accounts of experience, and seeks to combine an agnostic intellect with a believing heart. It has been aptly called "mental book-keeping by double entry". Ritschl, reviving Kant's separatist distinction of theoretical from practical reason, proclaims that the idea of God contains not so much as a grain of reasoned knowledge; it is merely "an attractive ideal", having moral and religious, but no objective, scientific, value for the believer who accepts it. Harnack locates the essence of Christianity in a filial relation felt towards an unknowable God the Father. Sabatier considers the words God, Father, as symbols which register the feelings of the human heart towards the Great Unknowable of the intellect. 

(7) Recent Agnosticism is also to a great extent anti-religious, criticizing adversely not only the knowledge we have of God, but the grounds of belief in Him as well. A combination of Agnosticism with Atheism, rather than with sentimental irrational belief, is the course adopted by many. The idea of God is eliminated both from the systematic and personal view which is taken of the world and of life. The attitude of "solemnly suspended judgment" shades off first into indifference towards religion, as an inscrutable affair at best, and next into disbelief. The Agnostic does not always merely abstain from either affirming or denying the existence of God, but crosses over to the old position of theoretic Atheism and, on the plea of insufficient evidence, ceases even to believe that God exists. While, therefore, not to be identified with Atheism, Agnosticism is often found in combination with it. (See ATHEISM.) 

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Agnosticism


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And I though you drew a Federal Pay Check.  You could have mentioned that a few thousand posts sooner Jake. I'm Independent. Pay my own way too. What is with the progressive stance Jake, thats counter productive? Can't protect and deny liberty at the same time, at least not without a plan.  Some bad laws coming down Jake. Take cover, count your fingers and your toes, hope they are still intact when this comes down.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

Everyone has known for a year that I was in the army.  There is not problem with it at all.  If you are suggesting there is, then stop paying taxes and protect yourself.


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyone has known for a year that I was in the army.  There is not problem with it at all.  If you are suggesting there is, then stop paying taxes and protect yourself.



You are projecting Jake. I have no problem with the Service at all. 

We are a Federalist Republic. Someone should remind The White House about that. 

I thought you were a Government Bureaucrat Jake. That's something to laugh about actually.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2010)

You have the obvious mentality for a civil servant, Intense, but I wish you well at whatever you are doing.


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have the obvious mentality for a civil servant, Intense, but I wish you well at whatever you are doing.



LOL!!! I don't exactly fit the profile Jake.  Thanks for the thought though. What's with the Avatar avatar Jake. Pretty disappointing movie. Anti everything. Watch it too much and your brain might just coagulate into something nasty.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have the obvious mentality for a civil servant, Intense, but I wish you well at whatever you are doing.



Is that bad???

It can't be as bad as having the soul of an accountant..


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 15, 2010)

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You have the obvious mentality for a civil servant, Intense, but I wish you well at whatever you are doing.
> ...



How did you manage to get through Avatar without falling asleep? I had it for a week or so and tried, repeatedly, to make it through and never did. Not once. I think this might be a movie that is actually improved by the butchery for time constraints that takes place when it hits cable.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 15, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Smartt33 said:
> ...



4th and long and Allie fumbles the snap and a D lineman picks it up and runs it in for a TD.
What is the # of that defensive lineman? Is that a 73?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jul 15, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And a tackle.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 16, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your philosophical argument for atheism is based on a non-starter.  You can't prove that God does not exist, yet you claim that God does not exist.  That is faith, JB, and I will leave you to the last word.



Fail. I never stated god does not exist. That is a positive statement. Only you have made a positive statement- you've asserted that _x_ exists, hence you bear the burden of proof, just as he who asserts there is an elephant in the room bears the burden of proof to point out the elephant and demonstrate its existence.

That you insist on misrepresenting my views and attributing to me things I never said proves that your fear of having your faith challenged prevents you from being honest.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 16, 2010)

Intense said:


> Kant denied in the name of "pure reason" the inferential validity of the classical theistic proofs, while in the name of "practical reason" he postulated God's existence as an implicate of the moral law



1) What is 'moral law'

2) morality is subjective

3) the moral instinct is easily explained without appeals to the metaphyscal and supernatural


> Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism.



Fail.

Atheism is, by definition, non-belief in deity. _a-without + theos-god_


Not surprising that a Roman Universal Church of Pederasty 'encyclopedia' would present such fallacious representations of others.


> By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the  sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to  the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the  existence of God.



Then you understand bullshit and false definition. Atheism is non-belief in deity. It means nothing more unless further specified. Go do the above vocabulary homework and come back when you're prepared to be honest


> Gnosticism
> The doctrine of salvation by knowledge.



Fail.


Gnositism =/= gnosticism

The first refers to a number of xtian heresies. The latter simply means one claims to have (absolute) knowledge (as opposed to _agnosticism a-without + gnostos-knowledge_)

Again, go do the above vocabulary homework and then come back when you have a clue.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your philosophical argument for atheism is based on a non-starter.  You can't prove that God does not exist, yet you claim that God does not exist.  That is faith, JB, and I will leave you to the last word.
> ...



Where did you pick up your philosophical training, JB?  You have misrepresented me and my views.  You fail at this, and really you should consider that those of us who are informed about these matters just grin when we read your remarks.

I will leave you to it this time.  Have a great day.


----------



## Intense (Jul 16, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Kant denied in the name of "pure reason" the inferential validity of the classical theistic proofs, while in the name of "practical reason" he postulated God's existence as an implicate of the moral law
> ...



 You are arguing with an Encyclopedia.

   

You need to spend more time on the New Advent website. 

Watch out or the Catholics are going to get you!!! What ever you do stay away from the Catholic girls, you are no match.  Then again ... if you like being a submissive and losing every battle of will, go for it.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 16, 2010)

You want an encyclopedia? Try Brittanica, not the Encyclopedia of Roman Universal Pederasty

No, go perform to the above vocabulary lesson and come back when you have a clue.


----------



## Intense (Jul 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You want an encyclopedia? Try Brittanica, not the Encyclopedia of Roman Universal Pederasty
> 
> No, go perform to the above vocabulary lesson and come back when you have a clue.



    

On Religion and Ethics I'll stick with New Advent.  You do know that you do have issues JB.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 29, 2010)

Really? The Constantinian holy book?

Why do you choose Satan?


----------



## Intense (Jul 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Really? The Constantinian holy book?
> 
> Why do you choose Satan?



I don't see the RC Church as Satan. I know too many Catholics to believe that for a second. For what ever reasons, there are areas where we run parallel, where we don't, I am not limited, by that. This is not the Middle Ages. There is both good and evil in the Church, There is both good and evil in the World. The point is to survive it.  Salvation is Individual, it has little to do with what Club one belongs to. It's about You and the choices you make JB. Inside you know that. Personally I find Churches both useful and limited. Let Conscience Dictate, that is your and my internal compass. Training wheels help keep one inline, during the development, any development. Sight, experience, intuition, are also valuable tools. There is an abundance of individual choice in this life.  Some times one must choose between the club and conscience, be the club Church, Society, or the State.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 29, 2010)

> I don't see the RC Church as Satan.



Clearly are ignorant of biblical teachings, Roman Universal teachings, or both.


> There is both good and evil in the Church



Not in then one true Church.


----------



## Intense (Jul 29, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > I don't see the RC Church as Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've been cover to cover. My favorite Translation is the NKJ. The True Church is in You Jake, it is Internal. There is that which we share externally, that is true, yet it is for each to digest, internally. The blind cannot lead the blind. Old Testament, New Testament, bottom line, Sincerity of Heart, Repentance, Reconciliation, Salvation. Seek God first in all things. Try not to stray too far. Make a difference in the lives of those around you. Know that the reason of your being is more significant than the tangents you create.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 29, 2010)

Who's Jake and why are you looking for anything inside him?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 29, 2010)

Christianity?  Are you kidding?

We were founded on Truth, Justice....and the American Way


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 29, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBi4lF043kQ]YouTube - Captain Capitalism: Cup o' Democracy[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Jul 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> YouTube - Captain Capitalism: Cup o' Democracy



   Good one! 

Personally I blame Alexander Hamilton for undermining the foundation of the Republic, by placing the Referee (The Federal Government), in a compromised position, having players on the field for the other side (Contracts with Corporations, Monopolies), and bets on outcome (The Fed will not rule against it's own gain often), the rulings are corrupted. So much for protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He abused the Constitution in 3 areas. Enumerated Powers, General Health and Welfare, Judicial Role of interpretation, V.S. Imagination.  Bye Bye 3 equal branches. The birth of the Oligarchy State.

In the end, who is not hurt by corruption???


----------



## DDdavis (Jul 31, 2010)

Common Law, the first duties of the Queen is protector of the faith. That is were most of our constitution was taken from.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> Allie-
> 
> Many of the founders (but not all, some were Deists, some Unitarian) were Christian.  The Constitution is a secular document.



You keep telling yourself that, Sky. Of course it's not true, but that doesn't matter.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 1, 2010)

The Constitution is a secular document.  NO god anywhere in it.  You can stick your head in the sand all you wish but you won't find Christ or Jesus in the documents which founded our land.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 1, 2010)

You're big on relying on the words of people - read what the founders said about what they used to guide them in developing the constitution and the country.

And the declaration is a founding document, and God is certainly in that.


----------



## Father Time (Aug 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You're big on relying on the words of people - read what the founders said about what they used to guide them in developing the constitution and the country.
> 
> And the declaration is a founding document, and God is certainly in that.



The declaration has no legal weight though, the Constitution does.


----------



## Intense (Aug 1, 2010)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Constitution is a secular document.  NO god anywhere in it.  You can stick your head in the sand all you wish but you won't find Christ or Jesus in the documents which founded our land.



Right on the Constitution, wrong on the rest.


----------



## Intense (Aug 1, 2010)

DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
JULY 6, 1775 1
[Since the colonial governors had taken steps to prevent the assemblies from naming delegates to the Second Continental Congress, the representatives to that body were chosen by irregular conventions. For this reason the Second Continental Congress was, from the beginning, an extra-legal, if not a revolutionary, assembly rather than a constitutionally authorized gathering. While it took steps to defend the colonies, it did not gather in a mood to declare immediate independence. To clarify its position, Congress adopted the Declaration reproduced below. The first draft is said to have been written by John Rutledge, but no copy of it has been found (for a brief sketch of the life of Rutledge see p. 258). An early draft of this document, written by Jefferson, proved too strong for the committee (Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, II, 128 n.). It was redrafted and toned down by John Dickinson (cf. p. 261) and adopted after debate, on July 6, in order that Washington might publish it on his arrival at the camp before Boston.]


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

A declaration by the representatives of the United Colonies of North America, now met in general Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.

*If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.*

*Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labor, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and inhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike nations of barbarians. Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and a harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great Britain in the late war, publicly declared that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies.*

Toward the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. From that fatal moment, the affairs of the British Empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions that now shake it to its deepest foundations. The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace and of then subduing her faithful friends.

These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statutable plunder. The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behavior from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honorable manner by His Majesty, by the late king, and by Parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.

Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have, in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial and, in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighboring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in Parliament that colonists charged with committing certain offenses shall be transported to England to be tried.

But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that Parliament can "of right make laws to bind us IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it is chosen by us or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language. But administration, sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of Delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer a humble and dutiful petition to the king, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful, measure: we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy. But subsequent events have shown how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in His Majesty's speech; our petition, though we were told it was a decent one, and that His Majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his Parliament, was huddled into both houses amongst a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The Lords and Commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts Bay; and that those concerned in it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by His Majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought His Majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of Parliament; by another, several of them were entirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to General Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished Peers, and Commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. Equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious maneuver calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? In our circumstances to accept them would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, General Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, and still occupied it as a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance are reduced to deplorable distress.

The General, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial." His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burned Charles-Town, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have received certain intelligence that General Carleton, the Governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feels, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword, and famine. We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

*Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favor toward us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with our [one] mind resolved to die free men rather than live slaves.
*
Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow- subjects in any part of the Empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offense. They boast of their privileges and civilization and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

*In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.
*
By order of Congress,

JOHN HANCOCK,
President

Attested,

CHARLES THOMSON,
Secretary

PHILADELPHIA, July 6th, 1775

Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775


----------



## rikules (Aug 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> You're big on relying on the words of people - read what the founders said about what they used to guide them in developing the constitution and the country.
> 
> And the declaration is a founding document, and God is certainly in that.



America IS a secular nation

ALL citizens have a right to believe in ANY god, ANY religion or even NO GOD and NO religion

NO citizen is bound by the rules or dictates of the christian religion

our laws are NOT based on the bible

biblical laws would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MOST of the 10 commandments ARE unconstitutional

laws should be based on logic, reason, common sense, neccessity  and NOT religious mumbo jumbo

alliebabble is a moron

I piss on allibabbles bible

even though MOST of our forefathers  may have been christian they did NOT create a christian constitution or a christian nation

when allbabble says "America was founded as a christian nation" what he REALLY MEANS is....
"the christian bible and the 10 commandments should be the law of the land!"
and
"only christians should be elected to public office, serve as judges, teach in our schools"
and
"homosexuality, atheism, evolution, islam, non-christian religions and divorce shodl ALL be outlawed"

and when he denies these truths he is a fkn liar

allbabble would create a christian theocracy faster than he can say "then lets put all the atheists in ovens!"

mau he burn in whatever hell he believes in


----------



## Intense (Aug 2, 2010)

rikules said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You're big on relying on the words of people - read what the founders said about what they used to guide them in developing the constitution and the country.
> ...



Pretty mean spirited rhetoric, Rikules. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?


----------



## 8atman (Apr 9, 2011)

rikules said:


> our laws are NOT based on the bible



I would like to invite everyone to contrast that idea with this:

*Pre-Constitution Era:*

Constitution of Connecticut, 1639, 1st written in America and a model for the US Constitution:
The framing committee was charged to make the laws as near to the Law of God as possible.

New Haven Colony Charter, 1644:
What was to be the rule in all the courts? The Law of God as given to Moses, the Old Testament.

Rhode Island Charter, 1663:
The civil state would stand on what principles? Those of the Gospel.


*Constitution Era:*

*Benjamin Rush, 1798*
The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republic governments.

*John Witherspoon, 1776*
God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to support the establishment of both.

*Abraham Baldwin, signer of Constitution, 1783*
It should, therefore, be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality...

Also note that the founding fathers (including Jefferson and Franklin, who both struggled with the deity of Christ but still promoted Biblical morality and law) quoted from the Bible 34% of the time. The philosophers and commentators of their day (Montesquieu, Blackstone, Locke, etc.) who influenced the founders quoted the Bible 60% of the time.


*Presidents:*

*George Washington*
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible...Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to.

*Harry S. Truman*
The fundamental basis of this nations laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.

*Andrew Jackson, 1845*
That book [the Bible], Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests.




rikules said:


> laws should be based on logic, reason, common sense, neccessity  and NOT religious mumbo jumbo



Contrast that idea with this - No. 2:

*John Adams*
Statesman, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can surely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue...

*As found on the Jefferson Memorial, in Jeffersons own words*
[Religion is] Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.

*Baron Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu* is the single most quoted individual by, and biggest influence upon, the founding fathers. He promoted the idea that you need three branches of government to oppose the tyranny of selfish men. He also promoted the idea that you must go to the best book and the best lawgiver. Specifically who and what did he mean by that? God and the Bible.




rikules said:


> even though MOST of our forefathers  may have been christian...


Okay, okay, lemme take a wild stab in the dark here. You believe that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, **fill-in random founder here**, were Deists, right?

In any case, the fact of the matter is, people didn't try to start separating God and religion from government until the mid to late 1950s. By contrast, the founders viewed the Old and New Testaments as being absolutely integral to writing the country's laws, and for establishing government's role and responsibility to its citizenry -- a free citizenry in particular. We have voluminous material of the founders writings, both private and public, (not to mention the writings of their contemporaries that inspired them) to know exactly how they felt about the role of religion in government. Pre-Constitution, during the drafting of the Constitution, and post-Constitution, from the documents writers to the presidents themselves, the pattern is consistent and flies in the face of what our culture today tells us to believe.


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 9, 2011)

Yes and no.  It was founded on Lockean philosophy, which references the Bible, but doesn't follow the status quo of Christian thought of that day (or this for that matter)

The Bill of Rights of VA explains the delineation well:

*"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." *


----------



## 8atman (Apr 9, 2011)

The founders "supported" a Lockean ideal only in the sense that we are free to choose our religion for ourselves. However, this is incidental to the question of where our founders looked to regarding the founding of our nation, its Constitution, and laws -- which was the point I addressed above.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 9, 2011)

de·ism&#8194; &#8194;
[dee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 9, 2011)

8atman said:


> The founders "supported" a Lockean ideal only in the sense that we are free to choose our religion for ourselves. However, this is incidental to the question of where our founders looked to regarding the founding of our nation, its Constitution, and laws -- which was the point I addressed above.



Re: "constitutional era" lol, Benjamin Rush was an animal rights activist, and who are those other guys? 


"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'


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

-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

-- John Adams; from letter to Thomas Jefferson


"if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?"

 -- Thomas Paine, from 'Age of Reason'


"The establishment of the Chaplainship to Cong[res]s is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles"

 -- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1819)


"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 Musselmen" 

-- from Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (1797)


----------



## JoReba (Apr 11, 2011)

Intense said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is a secular document.  NO god anywhere in it.  You can stick your head in the sand all you wish but you won't find Christ or Jesus in the documents which founded our land.
> ...



Go ahead ans show us where Jesus is found in America's Founding Documents.  Speak the truth instead of how you "feel" about it.

Lol.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 11, 2011)

JoReba said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Strawman alert!


----------



## JoReba (Apr 11, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The John Adams and John Hancock:
> We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
> 
> John Adams:
> ...



If you agree with John Adams that America was founded upon the "General Principles of Christianity," then go ahead and list those "Principles."  If you cannot list those "Principles," then stop lying.

Lol.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 11, 2011)

Every European government of the day in the 18th century was founded on Christian principles. Their governments were heavily influenced by Christianity.
The Founders RAN LIKE HELL from that. Anyone that does not know that is quite ignorant. That was the whole idea of our revolution. The Founders were radicals of their time. They wanted NO PART of any religous influence in government. 
For the seriously uninformed here, and there are many, the Anglican church SUPPORTED THE DAMN TORRIES, the folks that SUPPORTED THE CROWN.
Damn, why is it so hard for you people to acknwledge the obvious? 
Another elementary history lesson for the masses: The European governments were set up and run with the founding of divine right. God chooses who rules and the monarchy was founded on divine right. 
We are a nation of primarily Christians. We were not founded on Christianity or any religion. Most of the Founders owned slaves, FUCKED THEIR OWN SLAVES, supported the selling of the offspring of pl,antation owners, owned breweries, conducted smuggling operations, gambled a pant load and didn't live veryChristian lives at all. 
And that is why they won. We kicked the ass of the religous folks of the day, The Torries that had the support of the Anglican church and the red coats, THE DOMINANT CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN THE COLONIES. 
People, the religous folks of that era WERE THE ENEMY.


----------



## JoReba (Apr 12, 2011)

8atman said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > our laws are NOT based on the bible
> ...



Answer this question before you waste any more chit-chat words.

"How did the Founding Fathers make any of the contents of the Founding Documents 'near to the Law of God' as envisioned by the 1636 Connecticut Colony?"

Do you comprehend what I just asked?  Answer?  In orther words, what exactly are the "Founding Godly Principles of America" as they appear in:

1.)  The Bible?
2.)  America's Founding Documents?

If they exist as you claim they do, then they should be very easy to identify.


----------



## 8atman (Apr 14, 2011)

JoReba said:


> If [biblical principals] exist as you claim they do, then they should be very easy to identify.


If they exist as *I* claim they do?? I'm merely posting what the founders "claim" they used as a model. You can disagree with their intent as they stated and implemented it, but that is a topic for another thread. If the colonialists, the political philosophers, the founders, and the presidents claim that the founding of the United States of America was based on Old and New Testament precepts, I believe them. Why don't you?



JoReba said:


> "How did the Founding Fathers make any of the contents of the Founding Documents 'near to the Law of God' as envisioned by the 1636 Connecticut Colony?"
> 
> Do you comprehend what I just asked?  Answer?  In orther words, what exactly are the "Founding Godly Principles of America" as they appear in:
> 
> ...


Harry, would you care to field this?

*Harry S. Truman*
The fundamental basis of this nations laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.


----------



## 8atman (Apr 14, 2011)

Agit8r said:
			
		

> "But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations..."
> 
> -- James Madison; from 'Detached Memoranda'



While _Memoranda_ tackles a number of topics, including religious liberty and state regulation (ecclesiastical monopolies, the incorporation of churches, tax exemption of religious institutions, etc.), the quote you cited deals with grants of public land to churches, not the role that religion played in the founding documents, nor the role of religion in government in general.

In fact, Madison understood very well the necessity of religion to the particular type of government the founders wanted:

*James Madison, 1778*
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of man-kind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.



			
				Agit8r said:
			
		

> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God...their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson; letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802



Jefferson is explaining that there will be no State Church, and that the state will not interfere in church affairs; he is not commenting on morality in law being based on morality in the Bible.

Most people dont realize that Jefferson is most deliberately borrowing the verbiage of the famous Baptist Preacher:

*Roger Williams*
...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall...

More to the point, if this letter means what we are told it does, reconcile that with Jeffersons words as found on the Jefferson Memorial.



			
				Agit8r said:
			
		

> "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
> 
> -- John Adams; from letter to Thomas Jefferson



Most people probably dont know you left out the second half of the quote that explains the part that you did post. Im not saying you yourself did that on purpose, but there are those that do. Why?

Adams is speaking to the abuses of the theocracy in Europe and its leaders, not religion in general, not the Bible, not Christianity itself, and, yet again, not the role that Christian virtue should play in government law. Now, lets look at a more complete version to corroborate what I just said:

*John Adams*
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved  the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.

So, while those words of Adams may not be relevant to our discussion, these are:

*John Adams, October 11, 1798*
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.



			
				Agit8r said:
			
		

> "...is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?"
> 
> -- Thomas Paine, from 'Age of Reason'



No. Paines contributions to the American Revolution and political thought of his day (_The Rights of Man_ and _Common Sense_) were all but completely wiped away because of his religious views. He was nothing short of despised for _The Age of Reason_. That book is probably the perfect antithesis of what just about every other founding fathers religious beliefs were.



			
				Agit8r said:
			
		

> "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 Musselmen"
> 
> -- from Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 (1797)



Very good. Now, lets look at a few things your source apparently did not mention:

1.	There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence in any language and there has not been for well over 200 years. The English version ratified by Congress was a copy of an Arabic version, which in itself was a copy of the Arabic original (which we do not have).

2.	There is no Article 11 in the Arabic copy. While it is not known where Article 11 comes from, it is believed John Barlow himself inserted it into the treaty himself on his own accord. (Barlow was anti-Christian.)

3.	At that point in time, George Washington, John Adams, and the Senate probably would have signed a document saying the moon was made of Swiss cheese if it meant saving the lives of American hostages at the hands of the Barbary Coast pirates. They werent going to take the time to re-draft the treaty and send it through all the diplomatic channels again.

4.	The Spanish version of the treaty actually refers to Christian nations (meaning the United States in this case).

5.	Even Barlows English version states several times, Praise be to God.

6.	When the treaty was re-negotiated in 1805 and 1806, the non-Christian phrase had been conspicuously removed.

7.	The Treaty of Tripoli is not a founding document for the United States of America. By contrast, The Treaty of Paris, by which the government of Britain formally recognized the US as an independent nation and predates the Treaty of Tripoli, very much is a founding document.

*The Treaty of Paris, 1783, opens with these words:*
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God...



Agit8r said:


> Re: "constitutional era" lol, Benjamin Rush was an animal rights activist


An animal rights activist?? Are you referring to his humanitarian work?

Rush was a colonial physician and is considered to be the Father of American Medicine. He founded the Philadelphia Bible Society. He was also a writer and political commentator. His work had profound influence on the development of American government. He was a member of the Continental Congress and signed a little document called the Declaration of Independence. He is a founding father.

In addition to the quote I already gave you, Rush felt that the formation of our country was the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.



			
				Agit8r said:
			
		

> and who are those other guys?



Abraham Baldwin graduated from Yale in 1772. Like many other founding fathers, he was a minister (and also a lawyer). He represented Georgia in the Continental Congress where he worked on large state/small state rights. Baldwin never married. He is a founding father.

In addition to the quote I already gave you, Baldwin also said, When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government, will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature ... This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education.

John Witherspoon was a minister and served as president of what is now Princeton. It was during this period he wrote articles criticizing British rule. The British burned his library to the ground in 1776. Like Benjamin Rush, Witherspoon was a member of the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. He is a founding father.

In addition to the quote I already gave you, Witherspoon also said, Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government.

Now, there is a specific reason our founding fathers felt we must be based on Biblical principals and virtue. They wrote that reason down for us. We have record of it. It is there for those who wish to know. Do you know what that reason is?


----------



## 8atman (Apr 14, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> de·ism&#8194; &#8194;
> [dee-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> ...


Are you citing that in reference to one of the founders? If so, which?


----------



## Newby (Apr 15, 2011)

8atman said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bravo!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 15, 2011)

You folks post a bunch of quotes from political men.
That means nothing.
We are a nation of LAWS, NOT men and their various religous beliefs.
Show me where God or religion is ANY law or the Constitution.
No where.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 15, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> You folks post a bunch of quotes from political men.
> That means nothing.
> We are a nation of LAWS, NOT men and their various religous beliefs.
> Show me where God or religion is ANY law or the Constitution.
> No where.



The US Constitution is a secular document. But if you look at the State Constitutions of each of the 50 states, you will find references to God in almost every single one.

Alabama

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

Section 1:
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Section 186, witness oath:
"... so help me God."

Section 279, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Alaska

Preamble:
We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.


Arizona

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.


Arkansas

Preamble:
We, the People of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government; for our civil and religious liberty; and desiring to perpetuate its blessings, and secure the same to our selves and posterity; do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 2, Section 24:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences;

Article 19:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four ...


California

Preamble:
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


Colorado

Preamble:
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

Article 5, Section 45:
... in the year of our Lord 1885 ...

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six ...


Connecticut

Preamble:
The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

Article 11, Section 1, oath of office:
... So help you God.


Delaware

Preamble:
Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

Article 1, Section 1:
Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent;

Article 5, Section 2:
... in the year of our Lord, Nineteen Hundred ...

Article 14, Section 1, oath of office:
"... so help me God."

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-Seven ...


Florida

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 2, Section 5, oath of office:
"So help me God."


Georgia

Preamble:
To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Hawaii

Preamble:
We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono."

Article 7, Section 13:
Bonds issued by or on behalf of the State or by any political subdivision to meet appropriations for any fiscal period in anticipation of the collection of revenues for such period or to meet casual deficits or failures of revenue, if required to be paid within one year, and bonds issued by or on behalf of the State to suppress insurrection, to repel invasion, to defend the State in war or to meet emergencies caused by disaster or act of God.


Idaho

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.


Illinois

Preamble:
We, the People of the State of Illinois  grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors  in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity  do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.


Indiana

Preamble:
TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 1:
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights;

Article 1, Section 2:
All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.


Iowa

Preamble:
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:

Article 9, Part 2, Section 3:t 2, Section 3:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one ...

Kansas

Preamble:
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit:

Bill of Rights, Section 7:
The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed;

Kentucky

Preamble:
We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Section 1, Clause 2:
The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Section 228, oath of office:
... so help me God.

Section 232:
The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the General Assembly the most solemn appeal to God.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one ...

Louisiana

Preamble:
We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property; afford opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; assure equality of rights; promote the health, safety, education, and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and justice to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 10, Section 30, oath of office:
"... so help me God."

Maine

Preamble:
We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Article 1, Section 3:
All individuals have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no person shall be hurt, molested or restrained in that person's liberty or estate for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of that person's own conscience, nor for that person's religious professions or sentiments, provided that that person does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship;

Article 9, Section 1, oath of office
"So help me God."

Article 9, Section 1, alternative oath of office
"So help me God."

Maryland

Preamble:
We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

Declaration of Rights, Article 36:
That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; ... nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Declaration of Rights, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Declaration of Rights, Article 39:
That the manner of administering an oath or affirmation to any person, ought to be such as those of the religious persuasion, profession, or denomination, of which he is a member, generally esteem the most effectual confirmation by the attestation of the Divine Being.

Massachusetts

Preamble:
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Part 1, Article 2:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience;

Chapter 5, Section 1, Article 1:
Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America ...

Chapter 6, Article 1:
"So help me, God."

Chapter 6, Article 10:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five ...

Chapter 6, Article 12:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven ...

Amendments, Article 6, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Amendments, Article 11:
As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government;

Michigan

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 1, Section 4:
Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Minnesota

Preamble:
We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 16:
The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed;

Mississippi

Preamble:
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking his blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 4, Section 40, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Article 6, Section 155, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Article 14, Section 268, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Missouri

Preamble:
We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.

Article 1, Section 5:
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences;

Montana

Preamble:
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 3, Section 3, oath of office:
"... (so help me God)."

Nebraska

Preamble:
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.

Article 1, Section 4:
All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Nevada

Preamble:
We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

Article 15, Section 2, oath of office:
... so help me God.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four ...

New Hampshire

Part 1, Article 5:
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience;

Part 2, Article 84, oath of office:
So help me God.

New Jersey

Preface:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven.

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 3:
No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience;

Article 8, Section 2:
Nor shall anything in this paragraph contained apply to the creation of any debts or liabilities for purposes of war, or to repel invasion, or to suppress insurrection or to meet an emergency caused by disaster or act of God.

Article 10, Clause 5:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.


New Mexico

Preamble:
We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 2, Section 11:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship.

New York

Preamble:
We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

North Carolina

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 1:
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

Article 1, Section 13:
All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Article 6, Section 7, oath of office:
"... so help me God."

Article 6, Section 8:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

North Dakota

Preamble:
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Article 11, Section 4, oath of office:
"... so help me God."

Ohio

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 7:
All men have a natural and indefensible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one ...

Oklahoma

Preamble:
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seven ...

Oregon

Article 1, Section 2:
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Pennsylvania

Preamble:
WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 3:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences;

Article 1, Section 4:
No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

Rhode Island

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.

Article 1, Section 3:
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; ... and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person's conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person's opinion in matters of religion;

Article 3, Section 3, oath of office:
So help you God.

South Carolina

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.

Article 3, Section 26, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Article 6, Section 5, oath of office:
"So help me God."

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord, one thousand Eight hundred and Ninety-five.

South Dakota

Preamble:
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the state of South Dakota.

Article 3:
The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed.

Article 21, Section 1:
Properly divided between the upper and lower edges of the circle shall appear the legend, "Under God the People Rule" which shall be the motto of the state of South Dakota.

Tennessee

Preamble:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine ...

... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy ...

Article 1, Section 2:
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience;

Article 9, Section 1:
Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas

Preamble:
Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1, Section 6:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Article 16, Section 1, oath of office:
"... so help me God."


Utah

Preamble:
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five ...

Vermont

Chapter 1, Article 3:
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; ... Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

Article 2, Section 16, oath of office:
So help you God.

Article 2, Section 17, oath of office:
So help you God.

Article 2, Section 56, oath of office:
So help you God.

Virginia

Article 1, Section 17:
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;

Article 2, Section 7, oath of office:
"... (so help me God)."

Washington

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

West Virginia

Preamble:


Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.

Wisconsin

Preamble:
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution.

Article 1, Section 18:
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed;

Wyoming

Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine.


American Samoa

Article 5, Section 6, oath of office:
So help me God.



Guam - Organic Act

Subchapter 3, Section 1423d, oath of office:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) in the presence of Almighty God that I will well and faithfully support the Constitution of the United States...

Terminus:
... in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred seventy-five ...


Puerto Rico

Preamble:
We, the people of Puerto Rico, in order to organize ourselves politically on a fully democratic basis, to promote the general welfare, and to secure for ourselves and our posterity the complete enjoyment of human rights, placing our trust in Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the commonwealth which, in the exercise of our natural rights, we now create within our union with the United States of America.

Terminus:
... in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two.


Arkansas

Article 19, Section 1 (Denial of Office, Denial as Witness):
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland

Article 36 (Denial as Witness):
...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Article 37 (Denial of Office):
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.


Mississippi

Article 14, Section 265 (Denial of Office):
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina

Article 6, Section 8 (Denial of Office):
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Pennsylvania

Article 1, Section 4 (Denial of Office):
No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

(This section specifies that someone who acknowledges God cannot be denied office; conversely, anyone who does deny God can be, rather than shall be, denied office. The restriction is not as concrete as other denials of office.)

South Carolina

Article 6, Section 2 (Denial of Office):
No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee

Article 9, Section 2 (Denial of Office):
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

(Note that Article 9, Section 1 denies office to any "minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination.")

Texas

Article 1, Section 4 (Denial of Office):
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 15, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You folks post a bunch of quotes from political men.
> ...



Fine with me but your state requires that all running for public office "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". Lonestar.
I can be a resident of your state Lonestar, run for public office and declare that I acknowledge the existence of Mickey Mouse as Supreme Being.
And that qualifies me to run. 
See how silly those laws are? Political men will do anything to pacify anyone, especially men and their various religions.
And the Founders opposed that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 15, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Fine with me but your state requires that all running for public office "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". Lonestar.
> I can be a resident of your state Lonestar, run for public office and declare that I acknowledge the existence of Mickey Mouse as Supreme Being.
> And that qualifies me to run.
> See how silly those laws are? Political men will do anything to pacify anyone, especially men and their various religions.
> And the Founders opposed that.



I doubt you'd win any public office stating Mickey Mouse is a Supreme Being. As a matter of fact, I think they'd commit you to the nearest mental ward. 

With that said, this is the best counter you have to the fact that damn near every State Constitution acknowledges a Supreme Being?  Not to mention the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, "In God We Trust" which replaced "E Pluribus Unum".  The national motto and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was passed with a 99% vote in the House, and unanimously in the Senate.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 15, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Fine with me but your state requires that all running for public office "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". Lonestar.
> ...



Thanks for proving my point Lonestar. I doubt you even have a clue that you did.
The entire idea of your state having that law is POLITICS.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone of those politicians being religous.
It is to get votes only. 
Furthermore you continuously prove my point. Politicians, to get votes added "Under God" when Lonestar? You need to do some serious research there fellow because your argument is getting weaker by the second. The writer of The Pledge of Allegiance wrote it in 1891 and it was pressure to change it in 1954 during the Red Scare because the writer of The Pledge of Allegiance was A SOCIALIST! Well Duh. Ya think politics played a part in that Lonestar? A little history lesson is certainly in order next time you start spouting facts your way. Under your logic The United States of America was not a Christian nation when it was written in 1891 through 1954. 
And how does trusting God make us a nation based on Christian principles.
Again, we are a nation of primarily Christians. A GOOD THING.
The Founders were Christian predominantly. A GOOD THING.
The majority of Americans ARE CHRISTIAN. A GOOD THING.
THE LAW has nothing to do with religion and we are a nation founded ON THE LAW, not men and their various religions.
THE LAW sees no religion and DOES NOT RELY on the beliefs of one religion, specifically the majority Christian religion, over another.
EVER.


----------



## JoReba (Apr 18, 2011)

8atman said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go ahead and cite the exact places in The Bible which show the "principles and virtue" upon which you say America was founded.  Step up and do it.

For instance, show us the place where "self governance" is either spoken of or is demonstrated by God for anyone to pursue.

Do you understand what I just said to you?  Eh ... ?


----------



## 8atman (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm just wondering if anyone else noticed JoReba did not address my last post to him. Even the post of mine that he did quote above, he didn't address anything in it. Hmmm.....

I tell you what, JoReba, my response is on the previous page so maybe you just missed it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You address my post, then I'll address yours.


----------



## JoReba (Apr 19, 2011)

8atman said:


> JoReba said:
> 
> 
> > If [biblical principals] exist as you claim they do, then they should be very easy to identify.
> ...



You stated that you "believe them" when the Founding Fathers said they were using Biblical principles to form America's governance.  Are you naive and simple to "believe them" when they specifically cite no particular Scripture to demonstrate their statements?

For instance, Truman above did not cite specific Mosaic Laws from The Mount and did not show from Exodus, St. Matthew, Isaiah, and St. Paul what exactly were their words which supposedly were the basis for American Principles of Governance and Civility.  Do you believe everything people say to you ... ?  Do you like to listen to grandiose sounding and broadly visaged pronouncements without examining them for substance?

Lol.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 19, 2011)

America founded on Christian/judaeo principles, get over it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 19, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> America founded on Christian/judaeo principles, get over it.



Talk is cheap. We are a nation of laws.
Where in THE LAW is there anything to back up any of your claims?
The law has no preference for any religion. Be glad it DOESN'T!!!
Where in THE LAW does it state we are founded on Christian principles?
LAW is what governs us and is what this nation is FOUNDED ON. Religion ran and founded the European governments we fought and won our independence from.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Lol..so the claim is that the US isn't based upon Christianity...

The proof is provided that yes, the US is structured upon Christianity quite definitely, with multiple references to God in our founding documents...

and so you say "No that doesn't count because it doesn't mean anything".

Well sorry, it doesn't matter. The fact is that God is quite evident throughout the structure of our nation and our states; he is openly referred to and the documents STATE that the country is founded on Christian principles.

So no matter how many times you say "It doesn't matter what the evidence is, I SAY IT'S NOT TRUE!" you still look like an idiot.

This country was founded on Christian principles, references God repeatedly, and unequivocably states, repeatedly, that the one source of human rights is GOD and that freedom comes directly from GOD. 

At this point your posturings are nothing but silliness.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 19, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Allie, Christianity is RELIGION. 
Religion is not what this country was founded on.
Now did Christianity INFLUENCE the Founders? Of course! Was that influence a positive thing? Certainly! But it was not what FOUNDED THE NATION.
Only a dumb ass doesn't know, and I believe you know it but are too stubborn and rock headed to admit it, that LAWS are what this nation was founded on.
So tell us oh wise one, WTF in the law is religion mentioned ONCE? 
It isn't. 
Sounds good at political rallies as evidenced every election from the beginning to now but THE LAW is what this nation is founded on.
Something about THE CONSTITUTION, a document you know nothing about.
Don't blame your ignorance on me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 19, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Where is this written:
"No religous test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office OR PUBLIC trust in THE UNITED STATES"
Where Allie? Where is that written and who wrote it?
You claim that we were founded on Christian principles and the Founders wrote that religion is NOT a requirement for any office or the public trust in The United States.
You are brainwashed and dumber than a box of rocks. 
Tell us where that is written? Where is it written that religion is not part of our government? Where is that Allie? I bet you are too stubborn and air headed to answer that question?


----------



## JoReba (Apr 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Can you tell us where in the Founding Documents the "Godly Founding Principles" are stated?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It's written in the constitution Artcle VI, paragraph 3 but that does not disprove that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. 

How can you disregard the Declaration of Independence? How about George Washington's Proclamation of National Thanksgiving?  Were he stated:



> *"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." *
> 
> *Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being*, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 20, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Politicians proclaim shit all the time.
What Christian principles founded our government?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
What does that have to do with anything?

Logical fallacy. MULTIPLE logical fallacies. You lose.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
The principle that all men are created equal. For one.


----------



## JScott (Apr 20, 2011)

Our government is just a republic. Theres no Christian anything in that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

Nobody said Christianity was the foundation of all republics.

Christianity is the foundation of THIS republic, however.


----------



## JScott (Apr 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nobody said Christianity was the foundation of all republics.
> 
> Christianity is the foundation of THIS republic, however.



A republic is a republic. If anything ours is based on the Romans who were not Christian until the end of their rein.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

What complete hogwash. The discussion is whether or not this country was founded on Christian principles.

It was. The references are all through our foundation documents.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

JScott said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody said Christianity was the foundation of all republics.
> ...


 
So you have any references to Rome and such to validify that?

Because there are countless references to Christianity and God. The founding fathers said they were building a country based on Chrisitian values and as an extension of rights GRANTED BY GOD to men. You can say "yeah they said that but it means nothing". but of course, it does mean something. It means this country was founded on Christian principles. The founding fathers said so, our foundation documents say so. That's enough for me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So our nation was founded on the principle that all men are created equal.
All the while those Founders that you claim founded this nation on the Christian "principle that all men are created equal" owned and supported enslaving blacks.
You are a Looney Tune Bat Shit ignorant woman Allie. 
Dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

*yawn*

Same old same old junior high tripe presented as if it's new and fresh.


----------



## Rogo (Apr 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Many religions possess that principle. Plus, I always thought that the Bible held a biasness 
against women (I could be wrong, though).


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Uh, earth to Allie, come in.
The United States Constitution set up a representative type of government, one that is based heavily off the structure of the Roman Republic.
Now tell us how the Roman Republic was a "nation founded on Christian principles".
This is way too easy. Someone please make a valud argument here.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 20, 2011)

Rogo said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Allie will tell us that the Founders banning women from voting, most professions and serving on juries, just to name a few, were all "Christian principles".


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 20, 2011)

No, Allie won't.

I'm sure you will, tho.


----------



## Agit8r (Apr 20, 2011)

Well, it certainly wasn't founded on Objectivism


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



All of them.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> James Madison;
> "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"
> -letter to Thomas Jefferson
> 
> ...



I wonder????

If by some miracle of SCIENCE we could transport the science and knowledge of evolution, the genome, etc..we know now, back into the days of the mid 18th century and selectively offer it to those we know will be a part of the founding of our nation...what would they think of it?  

If you ask me our founding fathers did a remarkable job keeping the bible OUT of the Constitution.  The minor references to a deity were probably impossible to keep completely out of all documents such as the Preamble.  People were a lot dumber then..or at least a lot more ignorant and their beliefs and "faith" had little if any serious challenge in science.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > James Madison;
> ...


 
What a ridiculous post.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Then how come those fine Christian men held slaves in bondage?
Is that one of your "all of them"?
Try again. Please, something, anything. This is too easy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



To someone that goes to the Joke Phoenix online University that would be a ridiculous post.
If you read it again you may see that it is on point in every way.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



More ridiculous than invisible all knowing beings and people coming back from being dead three days?  I have a hard time taking someone that believes in the nonsense that you do having the hubris calling someone else "ridiculous".


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Logical fallacy, moron. You might think it's easy, but it's because you don't know what  you're doing or how ignorant you sound.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


 
It's ridiculous because our founding fathers were quite outspoken about the fact that they were building a new Republic based on tenets of Christianity. Equally ridiculous because the bible and God are referenced repeatedly in the documents upon which this Republic was built, and triply ridiculous because you think they weren't as smart as you.

I mean, c'mon. Lol. "They might have referred to God but it's because they weren't very SMART".

You don't think that's a little over the top?

Lol.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Have you ever read the Bible?

There's not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery. The rights of holding slaves is clearly established, both by precept and example.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." *Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America*.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Miss Baba...I try to be patient with you.  I honestly do.  Where did I ever say they were not smart?  They were extremely "smart" considering the level of education and understanding of science of their day.  They were among the very smartest of men.  There were also some as there are today that were not so very smart that had much influence as this nation was being created.  Maybe "smart" isn't the best description.  That being only one of the apparent symptoms of curiosity and knowledge.  Compared to today the "common" knowledge of then was sadly lacking in facts.  One can hardly blame people for believing in bullshit if that is all they get taught.  It would take a strong will as well as intellect to overcome that kind of peer pressure to be a "theist" let alone an atheist.

I have never indicated anywhere that I am smarter than our founding fathers.  BUT one can only go with what one knows..and in THAT context a 5 year old of today has more truth and fact to go on than anyone in 1750.  In THAT sense we are all smarter than anyone in 1750....or at least should be..


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

Sometimes it seems that everyone is a complete idiot. Even those that are 'enlightened' seem to only be 'enlightened' into a deeper level of idiocy. Educated? Into and by what? By all that is Holy... there is so much that is freely given to us within this nation and every bit of our complaining and bitching is because of just how 'free' and unappreciated most of the 'us' are. 

There was a time that people here were too busy staying alive than to worry about who was the smarter one in a basket full of fluffy bunnies. It seems that people today have too much time on their hands to think rather than to live. Analyze something enough and it comes to be transparent and irrelevant. The Constitution is what worked for so many years because the people, in general, were more limited by the hardships of their living... however, because the same does not apply, the old interpretations of The Constitution fall miserably short. Too many leaders that have not rightfully earned their position to criticize groups of people that have only made the necessary choices that which have ensured their survival and growth.

There are amendments and things can always be modified, but what of the groups and sects of people that are completely ignorant to the facts of the system's levels? It seems that even the greatest men in office don't understand, or don't portray an understanding effectively enough to the people that are in most need of hearing the depths. It is about more than merely waking a few up, obviously... and I say so as groggy as I am yet.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Sometimes it seems that everyone is a complete idiot. Even those that are 'enlightened' seem to only be 'enlightened' into a deeper level of idiocy. Educated? Into and by what? By all that is Holy... there is so much that is freely given to us within this nation and every bit of our complaining and bitching is because of just how 'free' and unappreciated most of the 'us' are.
> 
> There was a time that people here were too busy staying alive than to worry about who was the smarter one in a basket full of fluffy bunnies. It seems that people today have too much time on their hands to think rather than to live. Analyze something enough and it comes to be transparent and irrelevant. The Constitution is what worked for so many years because the people, in general, were more limited by the hardships of their living... however, because the same does not apply, the old interpretations of The Constitution fall miserably short. Too many leaders that have not rightfully earned their position to criticize groups of people that have only made the necessary choices that which have ensured their survival and growth.
> 
> There are amendments and things can always be modified, but what of the groups and sects of people that are completely ignorant to the facts of the system's levels? It seems that even the greatest men in office don't understand, or don't portray an understanding effectively enough to the people that are in most need of hearing the depths. It is about more than merely waking a few up, obviously... and I say so as groggy as I am yet.



You type a lot of words but I'm not sure what your point is. Either you believe this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles or you don't. Which is it?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes it seems that everyone is a complete idiot. Even those that are 'enlightened' seem to only be 'enlightened' into a deeper level of idiocy. Educated? Into and by what? By all that is Holy... there is so much that is freely given to us within this nation and every bit of our complaining and bitching is because of just how 'free' and unappreciated most of the 'us' are.
> ...



When did you stop beating your wife?  As that example displays..Some questions are not based in any attempt at getting to "truth.  As far as I know this countries founding was never a question of making it a theocracy or not.  The founding principles were aimed at political freedom and establishing as close to a true democratic republic as could be envisioned, achieved and enforced in that day and condition of the evolution of the human concept of society.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

What I have come to know is that the Founding Fathers' religions should be questioned and understood before the system(s) they put in place can be better defined. Apparently too few have done so. Personally, what has come to be known as Judeo-Christianity is what 'they' say the basics of the system are, but what Judeo-Christianity is becoming is not what it once was, either. This is not our ancestors world, for sure.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> What I have come to know is that the Founding Fathers' religions should be questioned and understood before the system(s) they put in place can be better defined. Apparently too few have done so. Personally, what has come to be known as Judeo-Christianity is what 'they' say the basics of the system are, but what Judeo-Christianity is becoming is not what it once was, either. This is not our ancestors world, for sure.



Our Founding Fathers were men of faith. 


Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants. 
The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances. 
The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed. 
Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it. 
Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.
However... 


The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy. 
They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > What I have come to know is that the Founding Fathers' religions should be questioned and understood before the system(s) they put in place can be better defined. Apparently too few have done so. Personally, what has come to be known as Judeo-Christianity is what 'they' say the basics of the system are, but what Judeo-Christianity is becoming is not what it once was, either. This is not our ancestors world, for sure.
> ...



I stumble on the symbolism and the obvious difference(s) between what/who they had and had made their God vs the God of our 'up for grabs' [mis]interpreted bible of today. Yet, I am also more paleoconservative and fundamentalist than most others are. There were things at work then that allowed the strict structure and forced understanding of mainstream to be streamline... But it isn't so today. Because our ways have come to be more relaxed and our thoughts more fluid, be it evolution of the mind or else... What was said to be solid and sturdy structure is something that many recognize as not being so at all.

Were 'we' founded on Christianity? It will only come to be more and more controversial as time passes because the preservation of labels and their definitions are not being kept.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



What makes you think their God and our God aren't the same God?

You seem to have difficulty with one simple question. Do you beleive this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Given what we know of our founding fathers and their beliefs, coupled with the wrtings of historical documents,  this really should be a no-brainer.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Again with the un answerable question.  In the sense that there is no god...the one in the imagination of the people of 1750 was the same imaginary one you believe in.  Of course no one knows how crazy YOUR imagination is...so I must confine my comparison to all crazy beliefs in any god irrespective to how insane any ones concept of a god is..


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



Asking someone what they think is unanswerable? Maybe for your dumbass it would be. 

Knowing that the majority of our Founding Fathers read from the same Bible as todays Christians do, then it's easy to conclude that we believed in the same God.

If you truly believe there is no God, then why do you put so much effort into debating religious issues?

Seems to me your trying to either 1) persuade the unpersuadable or 2) you're not very confident in your belief.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Ah..not so fast cowgirl!  I have had success. I have converted several people from the darkness of Christianity to the light.  Probably not entirely my doing but one of my successes was even a Catholic Priest.  Granted it is hard work.  The reward is small but we do what we can.  I have never hit a hole in one in golf either but I still play the game.


----------



## JScott (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > What I have come to know is that the Founding Fathers' religions should be questioned and understood before the system(s) they put in place can be better defined. Apparently too few have done so. Personally, what has come to be known as Judeo-Christianity is what 'they' say the basics of the system are, but what Judeo-Christianity is becoming is not what it once was, either. This is not our ancestors world, for sure.
> ...



Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[12][13] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin.[14] However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[15]


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

JScott said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...


 
What are you trying to prove? That they were Christian? We already know that.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

What was the colonies founded on before we had our revolution?
And then all of a sudden these men changed overnight and founded this country on "Christian principles"?
Folks, the Founders were basically THE SAME PEOPLE the day after this great nation was founded as they were when they were colonialists. And guess what those colonialists called and refered to themselves before the founding of this nation? ENGLISH.
What set us apart from what we we were BEFORE the revolution and The Constitution was written until AFTER the revolution and the Constitution was written was not religion. It was THE LAW.
Tell me how the nation suddenly changed over night from what we were before the revolution and then all of a sudden became a nation founded on "Christian principles".


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Ummmm, though I am certainly not in cahoots with Huggy on purpose or with reason (yet).... How's about you... yes, Lonestar_Logic, define your God, then define your assumption of our Forefather's God. I'm not contrary as I love BOTH concepts. However, understanding both sides of this proverbial coin also forces me to recognize both understandings, both depths... that being what it is but only if there are indeed just two sides to the coin. How chaotic are we to get? Hmmm... How many ways can the preciously preserved writings be perceived? What is the key to true preservation? Perhaps anything and everything that keeps the human mind trained to one logic, one thought. Yet that would be what? Spiritual enslavement? By? Teachers? Preachers? Catalyst? There are worst things than abortion, obviously...


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> What was the colonies founded on before we had our revolution?
> And then all of a sudden these men changed overnight and founded this country on "Christian principles"?
> Folks, the Founders were basically THE SAME PEOPLE the day after this great nation was founded as they were when they were colonialists. And guess what those colonialists called and refered to themselves before the founding of this nation? ENGLISH.
> What set us apart from what we we were BEFORE the revolution and The Constitution was written until AFTER the revolution and the Constitution was written was not religion. It was THE LAW.
> Tell me how the nation suddenly changed over night from what we were before the revolution and then all of a sudden became a nation founded on "Christian principles".


 
The colonies were part of a MONARCHY, Einstein.

Then, when we established the REPUBLIC we based it on CHRISTIAN principles of the inherent equality of all men.

At that time, people were divided over whether or not black slaves were men or even human, and women did not have rights.

However, based upon the CHRISTIAN tenets of the Constitution, eventually the country came around to incorporate women and blacks into the citizenry, and recognized they do indeed have the same rights as all men.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

So God was influential in this country being founded on Christian principles such as slavery, smuggling, tax avoidance, high alcohol consumption, breeding with slaves and selling their own children into slavery, keeping women in their place and the other social mores of the day?
You folks are insane. This nation was not founded on Christian principle. It was founded by men that were Christian in a predominantly Christian land. 
Fact is the inhabitants of this country at our conception were the most radical renegade wild men "Christians" of their day in the entire world.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



In playing the Devil's Advocate here, seriously, in converting several from 'the darkness of Christianity'... how many of 'us' are assumed to be so blind as to the depth of evil in which we supposedly represent? I'm not vengeful, nor am I boastful, but as in love with some 'things' as I can come to be and have been, religion has always only had the powers over me that I have allowed (haha) however naive that may sound...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What was the colonies founded on before we had our revolution?
> ...



"equality of all men"?
Allie forgets that the Founders owned slaves.
How is that equality of all men? 
The Founders WERE THE SAME MEN before and after the revolution. 
What Christian principles did they all of a sudden attain?
You have tried your equality of all men which was not initiated by those Founders which you claim founded this nation on "Christian principles".
"came around to incorporate women and blacks into the citizenry"
"Christian tenets of the Constitution" Hell, even Lonestar knows that the Constitution is a SECULAR document and religion has NO influence in it.
This is getting fun.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> So God was influential in this country being founded on Christian principles such as slavery, smuggling, tax avoidance, high alcohol consumption, breeding with slaves and selling their own children into slavery, keeping women in their place and the other social mores of the day?
> You folks are insane. This nation was not founded on Christian principle. It was founded by men that were Christian in a predominantly Christian land.
> Fact is the inhabitants of this country at our conception were the most radical renegade wild men "Christians" of their day in the entire world.


 
Logical fallacy, completely irrelevant and does not establish that the US wasn't founded on Christian principles.

Yes, it was founded on Christian principles. We know this because THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS, and since they founded the country, it's pretty much what we have to go on.

We know it because IT SAYS SO IN THE CONSTITUTION and other founding docs. Again, since those are the docs upon which our country was founded, that's what we have to go on.

Next.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

What it comes down to is this...the only way we can determine what principles the country was founded on is to reference the founding fathers, the Constitution, the Declaration, and correspondence we have access to from when the country was being structured.

According to those sources, which are the ONLY sources we have, the country was founded upon Christian principle. NOT religious principle. The ff made it very clear they would not use the government to establish a state religion, or interfere in the worship practices of citizens. But they also made it very clear that they were following CHRISTIAN principles and were trying to set the country up in accordance with those principles. They believed, said, and wrote that men's rights come directly from God, and that a republic could not protect those rights except that it looked to the strictures and blessings of God to do so.

Therefore, the US was certainly founded upon Christian principles. It's silly to insist that because everybody isn't Christian, the foundation of this government isn't firmly adhered to Christian principles. Whether or not people are Christians, or even GOOD Christians has nothing to do with it. The fact is, all the evidence is quite clear. We are founded on Christian principles. 

Unless someone really wants to deny that the founding fathers SAID so.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

And "Yeah they said that and all our documents say that but they were just DUMB" doesn't work to prove the US was NOT founded on Christian principles. That's just juvenile and silly.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And "Yeah they said that and all our documents say that but they were just DUMB" doesn't work to prove the US was NOT founded on Christian principles. That's just juvenile and silly.



Quite to the contrary.... I have yet to say anyone is and/or was dumb... the forefathers obviously knew and covered up a great deal more than what we could even boast of today... Eh, or perhaps they didn't, yet then that would make them even more naive than some are today, which is plausible but not likely.

The forefathers brought over a system that was designed by someone other than the basic few 'remnants'. They didn't implement it immediately because there were obvious requirements and 'special interests'. For the love of all that be Holy, even if it seems like a conspiracy kind of thing... it is far more plausible than a multitude of spiritually blind ones. Eh... yet then spiritually did seem to take a bazaar turn at some point...


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And "Yeah they said that and all our documents say that but they were just DUMB" doesn't work to prove the US was NOT founded on Christian principles. That's just juvenile and silly.
> ...


 
I didn't say you said it. Huggy said it.

I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to the forefathers bringing over a system designed by someone other than the basic few "remnants". I have NO idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You can keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself.

Forgive me if I don't believe anything you say.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

JScott said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



Thanks for supporting my position.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> What was the colonies founded on before we had our revolution?
> And then all of a sudden these men changed overnight and founded this country on "Christian principles"?
> Folks, the Founders were basically THE SAME PEOPLE the day after this great nation was founded as they were when they were colonialists. And guess what those colonialists called and refered to themselves before the founding of this nation? ENGLISH.
> What set us apart from what we we were BEFORE the revolution and The Constitution was written until AFTER the revolution and the Constitution was written was not religion. It was THE LAW.
> Tell me how the nation suddenly changed over night from what we were before the revolution and then all of a sudden became a nation founded on "Christian principles".



Religion in the 13 colonies.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



My comment on another post answered this.

"Knowing that the majority of our Founding Fathers read from the same Bible as todays Christians do, then it's easy to conclude that we believed in the same God"

If you can't give an answer to a very simple question, then just say so. No need for the psychobabble.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar-logic just as my answer fails you... your answer fails me. I'm over it, are you? And my dad is Tex, who's yours?

Psychobabble gets most women off in ways the average man just *cannot*. Sorry. THAT is God's basic truth.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Lonestar-logic just as my answer fails you... your answer fails me. I'm over it, are you? And my dad is Tex, who's yours?
> 
> Psychobabble gets most women off in ways the average man just *cannot*. Sorry. THAT is God's basic truth.



Your answers fails me because you never gave a direct answer. 

My answer fails you because you are obviously mentally challenged.

I don't give a rat's ass who your dad is but I think he oughta have his butt whooped regardless.

And it's probably a good thing you get yourself off on psychobabble because I doubt any man in his right mind would touch you. Just don't try to speak for MOST women.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar-logic just as my answer fails you... your answer fails me. I'm over it, are you? And my dad is Tex, who's yours?
> ...



Okay... I'll play the Prince's Chameleon... just to show the holy proud ass from Texas a thing or two... Women today don't need men... Nor do they need us... Howeverbeit true, that is only true regarding the physical pleasures of life. You are not understanding any depth within not what are my words but what they mean. My daddy doesn't need his ass whipped, I'll take the whippin'. I'm quite capable of fighting my own battles and I ain't even from the technical south. 

Mentally challenged? Really? You wanna do this? That would not be the wisest thing as I come from insanity and have come to understand it on levels you cannot suck through a straw... This isn't as personal as all that though, you're answer simply fails because your spiritual insight, your mental depth fails you... prohibiting you from your potential. I am sorry... for you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 21, 2011)

I have consistently stated the fact that religion was a part of the Founders, they were predominantly Christian and the country was Christian.
How that translates into this country was founded on religion is a stretch and to date here no one has offered one principle that this nation was founded on.
Not one. Why? Because the LAW is not religion.
And THANK GOD it isn't. They do it that way in Iran.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



The 'remnants' in this specific reference are the Puritans that came over with CC. Who designed the system? Hmmm...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 22, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



Again with the psychobabble.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 22, 2011)

Ok, all you arm chair historians:
What was the first domestic crisis that Washington, the government and the politicians face when our new nation that was "founded on Christian principles" won their independence from the British?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have consistently stated the fact that religion was a part of the Founders, they were predominantly Christian and the country was Christian.
> How that translates into this country was founded on religion is a stretch and to date here no one has offered one principle that this nation was founded on.
> Not one. Why? Because the LAW is not religion.
> And THANK GOD it isn't. They do it that way in Iran.


 
"Religion was part of the founders"....? WHAT the FUCK does that mean?

Anyway regardless of how you want to deny it, what I said stands. The FF SAID they were structuring the country on Chrstian principles. The FF said  they looked  to God.

So were they lying, ya think? Or are you pretending they didn't say it? Or do you just...ahem...know better than the founding fathers what they really meant to do and say...despite what they actually DID do and say?

Did the founding fathers not state repeatedly they were basing the structure of the country upon Christian principles, and looking to God for guidance? 
I continue to be amazed that regardless of the truth and the evidence, dishonest anti-Christian pieces of shit will still deny, deny, deny.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2011)

"But was America founded on Christian principles? Just read the first words of the Declaration of Independence: 
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. 
*From the beginning, America's founders accepted the reality that basic rights were inseparable from human beings and they recognized that those inalienable rights were not given by government nor acquired by force, but that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the gifts of the Creator. *
*In 1844, the Court said, "Christianity is part of our common law." *
*In 1892, the Supreme Court said this: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national because this is a religious people. This is historically true." *
*In 1930, the U.S. Supreme Court said this: "We are a Christian people, according to our motto." *
*In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. *The question isn't - Was America founded on Christian principles? The question is - what world view has given birth to and sustained America? The answer to that question is simple: Christianity."

Rediscovering American History - The American Policy Roundtable


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have consistently stated the fact that religion was a part of the Founders, they were predominantly Christian and the country was Christian.
> ...



"The Constitution SAYS the country looks to God"
Dumbass, the Constitution makes no reference of God anywere. 
Same with The Declaration of Independence, which is not the law, as all Jefferson mentions is a "Creator" , "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence" on purpose so as to NOT make any reference to Christianity, a dominance of Christianity, any influences of supposed Christian principles  or a Christian God. That document has no legal authority over any of our laws, our lawmakers or ourselves.
The Declaration makes it very clear that our government created by humainty derive ALL their powers from THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, not from any God be it Christian or any other.
I am Christian.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 22, 2011)

My bad.

However, our primary founding document, in which we set forth the foundation of the country and lay out the intent, the Declaration...it does mention God.

Anyway, like I said, despite your dishonest pretense that although the founding fathers, who laid the structure for the country, did not state that they were founding a country on Christian principles, and despite your dishonest spin that although the ff SAID they were building a country on Christian values, it doesn't mean anything, the proof shows that clearly we were built on Christian principles.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> My bad.
> 
> However, our primary founding document, in which we set forth the foundation of the country and lay out the intent, the Declaration...it does mention God.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, despite your dishonest pretense that although the founding fathers, who laid the structure for the country, did not state that they were founding a country on Christian principles, and despite your dishonest spin that although the ff SAID they were building a country on Christian values, it doesn't mean anything, the proof shows that clearly we were built on Christian principles.



I have seen you admit mistakes in the past.
You are very principled in that area. That is a strong character trait you have that most do not have.
I salute you for that. Your children will benefit greatly from that and I wager they already have.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 22, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You asked why someone like myself would come to the religious forum and denounce religion.  I told you why.  What you believe is of little consequence in that you believe mostly rubbish.  It isn't THAT hard to convert people with weak minds.  That is why they allowed themselves to get sucked into religion in the first place.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 22, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that 2.5 percent of the worlds population have strong minds and the rest have weak minds. 

Yea right......


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 22, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Something like that..ya..  In the defense of the weak minded there is certainly a tsunami of peer pressure to fall victim to religion.  It does indeed take a strong will to set that influence aside and look at one's options clearly.


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 22, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



YOU are attempting to argue 'religion' with me and yet criticising psychobabble? Have you taken your medication today?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 22, 2011)

I see the nation founded on Christian principles will not answer my question.
Again, what was the first domestic crisis this nation faced after it was founded?
And what Christian principle influenced it?


----------



## slukasiewski (Apr 22, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



Wow - what a fucking space case


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 22, 2011)

slukasiewski said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



Ww


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 25, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



I'm not trying to argue anything with you. I asked a simple question that required a simple answer that you're incapable of providing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I see the nation founded on Christian principles will not answer my question.
> Again, what was the first domestic crisis this nation faced after it was founded?
> And what Christian principle influenced it?




To answer your first question:

The crisis of 1816-1819.

Answer to your second question:

The crisis had nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I see the nation founded on Christian principles will not answer my question.
> ...



"The crisis of 1816-1819" 
Is there a name to that crisis Lonestar?

The Whiskey Rebellion Lonestar. Most westerners called it the Whiskey Insurrection.
First crisis of this nation and it had everything to do with YOUR claims that this nation was founded on Christian principles. 
The excise tax was political to the core as Hamilton passed it. 
Eastern distillers were large distillers that were either the Founders themselves owning them or having a large share of ownership and were influential in the support of he revolution. The religous people of that day, the Torries that supported the crown monarch King in England, ya know Lonestar-those folks we defeated, were always against the influence those distillers had on our government. Even in Colonial times the religous Torries were against drinking in many instances.
The western distillers were maily Mom and Pop operations and were unfairly taxed under Hamilton's plan. They did not receive the large tax breaks under Hamilton's plan. Additionally, they paid a higher tax per gallon. The few Torries there were in the western states were Christian religous sects that opposed all drinking.
Do they teach history in Texas?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

Oh c'mon.

That's ridiculous.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

"the religious people of that day"...

Pffft...lololol...what a clueless blowhard.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yep and the tax had to be paid in specie ie money and trhe western areas relied more on barter and had very little money.
Whiskey was money to them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Don't confuse Allie with the facts.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

I have never heard, and can't find, anything that identifies Tories as particularly "religious".


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes, its called "The crisis of 1816-1819"

The whiskey rebellion wasn't what I would call a crisis.

And to say religion had anything to do with the rebellion is a stretch.

The rebellion was nothing more than a citizen revolt against the tax on whiskey, hardly a crisis.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

And when I want to be confused by facts, I certainly wouldn't look to you two to accomplish it.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Not a crisis?  Washington gathered more troops for the whiskey rebellion than for any revoloutionary war battle to march on the western lands to enforce the whiskey tax.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



That's right it wasn't a crisis. 

A few people were killed and you call that a crisis.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

I'm struggling to make the weird connection to the Torrie Religious Sects, lolololololol....

I've never in my entire life heard this particular version...

LOLOLOL!!


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 25, 2011)

Can I join a Torrie Religious Sect? 

I think gadawg has invented his own religion, complete with fake history and dogma.

The Torrie Sect of Whiskey Rebellion fame!!!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 26, 2011)

Allie claims we are a nation founded on Christian principles in this thread and in another thread advocates the welfare system that gives an 18 year old unwed mother government cash, a house to live, food, free medical care, etc. all forced on the taxpayers.
During the late 1700s unwed mothers had to post a cash bond to the courts for the child's support or face incarceration. Many courts fined unwed mothers for having an out of wedlock chuld and banned her from that community. Some courts imposed lashes to the feet and public whippings of unwed mothers for having a child out of wedlock. 
Unwed mothers were common among indeutured servants because these women were prevented by law from marrying until they completed their servitude. The large % of those pregnancies were from their masters. In addition to the fines and punishments faced by free unwed mothers in those times when we were a "nation founded on Christian principles" the courts required unwed indentured servant mothers mostly impregnated by their masters, to compensate their masters for the losses due to their pregnancy and confinement, usually in the form of an extra year of service.
Yes, our Founders were such fine Christian men and we were founded on their Christian principles.
You people are dumb as a box of rocks and don't have the discipline to know the history of your own country,


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2011)

Bring back the good ol days


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Allie claims we are a nation founded on Christian principles in this thread and in another thread advocates the welfare system that gives an 18 year old unwed mother government cash, a house to live, food, free medical care, etc. all forced on the taxpayers.
> During the late 1700s unwed mothers had to post a cash bond to the courts for the child's support or face incarceration. Many courts fined unwed mothers for having an out of wedlock chuld and banned her from that community. Some courts imposed lashes to the feet and public whippings of unwed mothers for having a child out of wedlock.
> Unwed mothers were common among indeutured servants because these women were prevented by law from marrying until they completed their servitude. The large % of those pregnancies were from their masters. In addition to the fines and punishments faced by free unwed mothers in those times when we were a "nation founded on Christian principles" the courts required unwed indentured servant mothers mostly impregnated by their masters, to compensate their masters for the losses due to their pregnancy and confinement, usually in the form of an extra year of service.
> Yes, our Founders were such fine Christian men and we were founded on their Christian principles.
> You people are dumb as a box of rocks and don't have the discipline to know the history of your own country,


 
You really shouldn't be talking about other people being dumb as rocks.

Please share more about the religious aspec of the *Torrie* (sic) religious sect, you loon.

Furthermore, explain how whether or not the founding fathers were individually *good* Christians in your opinion has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principle? You idiot. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that more than 200 years ago America had a slave trade and laws that punished women for having out of wedlock children has nothing whatever to do with it. 

I think this last post of yours pretty effectively indicates you have exhausted your pathetic argument. Between making the false assumption that the US can't be founded upon Christian values because you don't approve of the old laws, and your sad little foray into trying to distract with red herrings from other threads shows you're out of material.

Good. Maybe now you'll shut up and try actually reading a little instead of lambasting us with your garbage.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 26, 2011)

We are a Christian nation and always have been.

American Christian History and Heritage


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2011)

peach174 said:


> We are a Christian nation and always have been.
> 
> American Christian History and Heritage



No.  We are not.  We are a non theological republic with a citizenry that is a majority being associated with the Christian religion.

Christians are pushy fantasizing fucks that would like this to be a Christian theocracy but it will not happen.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 26, 2011)

You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.
The majority of Europeans that moved here was Christian. They moved here to practice their way of worship. The very first colonists were Christian's.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.



So?   They were also white...is this a white nation?   They were also men...is this a nation of men only?   They were also a majority of Anglo-Saxon...are we a nation of Anglo-Saxons?   They were also mostly rich to middle class...are we a nation of rich/middle class?   They went OUT OF THEIR WAY to phrase our Constitution so that religion....particularly Christianity...would NOT be a part of the government.



> The majority of Europeans that moved here was Christian. They moved here to practice their way of worship. The very first colonists were Christian's.



The First Colonists in Virginia were here for profit and one of the first "christian" things they did was kill the natives and take their land.

Once of the First Colonies in New England were the Puritans and one of the first "christian" things they did was kill the natives and take their land...then they turned on other christians like the Quakers and hung them...and banished or killed anyone who disagreed with their theocratic ideas.

Fun stuff to look up at from our Ancestors, eh?

Note:   I would like to add that the REASON the European settlers were Christian was because if you were NOT a christian in Europe, they killed you.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.
> The majority of Europeans that moved here was Christian. They moved here to practice their way of worship. The very first colonists were Christian's.



I know American history just fine.  You are in no position to "school" me on any subject that I am aware of or interested in.

The first whites that invaded and occupied the Americas were the subjects of the crowns of France , England, Portugal and Spain.   

They were not the same people that founded our nation.  THOSE people rejected the crown of England and it's Church of England as authority.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.
> ...



You should read a history book sometime.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 26, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.
> ...



That's right. They were forced to be Catholic's and they wanted to practice protestantism.
It is still Christianity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > We are a Christian nation and always have been.
> ...


 
No. There's a difference between being founded upon Christian principles (primary of which is free will and liberty) and being a THEOCRACY.

I guess now we understand why you guys are so moronic on this topic. You didn't know that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

And the truth of it is, we're not talking about what you WANT to be true, we're discussing actual, certifiable, documented FACT. The FACT is the founders structured this republic on CHRISTIAN principles. They said it. It's not even up for debate, except you retards are so fucking stupid that as you try to change history to suit your elevated modern tastes you forget that fact/fiction are two different things. You might wish it wasn't founded upon Christian principles..too bad. You might think that Christian principles and theocracy are the same thing....too bad, also. That just proves you're ignorant. Stupidity is not a defense.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I read American History books like other people eat peanuts.

Now....show me where I said something that is not true.

(And while you're at it, you need to spread some rep around so you can neg rep me again for speaking the truth...as you do)


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Whatever. The fact is the US was founded on Christian principles. It doesn't matter what religion the ff belonged to, or if they didn't. All that matters is what they tell us about the formation of the country..and they TELL US THEY STRUCTURED THE REPUBLIC UPON CHRISTIAN TENETS. 

I mean, that's the beginning and end of it. The rest is just fluff.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And the truth of it is, we're not talking about what you WANT to be true, we're discussing actual, certifiable, documented FACT. The FACT is the founders *structured this republic on CHRISTIAN principles*. They said it. It's not even up for debate, except you retards are so fucking stupid that as you try to change history to suit your elevated modern tastes you forget that fact/fiction are two different things. You might wish it wasn't founded upon Christian principles..too bad. You might think that Christian principles and theocracy are the same thing....too bad, also. That just proves you're ignorant. Stupidity is not a defense.



They did not...this nation was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment which struggled against the theocratic principles found in Europe at that time....AND this nation was also founded on many principles of Freemasonry which also went against the theocratic principles of Europe at that time.

George Washington was a Mason and even a Worshipful Master...the laying of the foundations for the WH and the Capitol building were Masonic ceremonies.

The Constitution was written using the Enlightenment principles of John Locke and Montesquieu.

When Washington D.C. was laid out, it was designed following the concepts of the Roman Republic....since our Founders decided on that model (with changes)  Need I remind you the Roman Republic was pre-Christian.

Fee free to prove me wrong on any of what I said.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *Whatever. *The fact is the US was founded on Christian principles. It doesn't matter what religion the ff belonged to, or if they didn't. All that matters is what they tell us about the formation of the country..and they TELL US THEY *STRUCTURED THE REPUBLIC *UPON CHRISTIAN TENETS.
> 
> I mean, that's the beginning and end of it. The rest is just fluff.



"Whatever"?   That's your reply after being asked to PROVE that anything I said was wrong?


Hey, some mad debating skills there, Allie.....


And btw...the Republic they modelled our country's government on was a Pagan Republic.....in case you didn't know.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And the truth of it is, we're not talking about what you WANT to be true, we're discussing actual, certifiable, documented FACT. The FACT is the founders *structured this republic on CHRISTIAN principles*. They said it. It's not even up for debate, except you retards are so fucking stupid that as you try to change history to suit your elevated modern tastes you forget that fact/fiction are two different things. You might wish it wasn't founded upon Christian principles..too bad. You might think that Christian principles and theocracy are the same thing....too bad, also. That just proves you're ignorant. Stupidity is not a defense.
> ...


 
That's great, Einstein. Please provide the documentation that supports that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > *Whatever. *The fact is the US was founded on Christian principles. It doesn't matter what religion the ff belonged to, or if they didn't. All that matters is what they tell us about the formation of the country..and they TELL US THEY *STRUCTURED THE REPUBLIC *UPON CHRISTIAN TENETS.
> ...


 
Great, here we go again. Time for Bod to broadcast her trolling skills and lack of any sort of reason.

"

[SIZE=-1]Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as *it has pleased the almighty God *by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of *Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. *Amen". Sounds Christian to me.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "*...God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise *without His aid?"*[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles *on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity *... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Isit not that the Declaration of Independence first organized *the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemers mission *upon earth? That it laid *the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" *Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that *Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. *The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: *"By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; *and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, *religion and morality are indispensable supports. *In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, *who should labor to subvert these great pillars." *Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- *of our Christian nation *to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people*...This is a Christian nation." *There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is *no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders *of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'[/SIZE] 

Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?

Please continue to argue the nation was founded upon pagan principles. It gives me a warm feeling inside to see you look like even more of an ass.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Let me ask you a quite simple question or two:

1) which came first...the State Constitutions or the Federal Constitution?

2)  which is supreme, especially if there is a conflict?

ok, a third:

3)  what was the Supreme Court case _Torcaso v. Watkins _about and what was the decision?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Oh, and one more OFFICIAL government document...which had to be approved by Congress:

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> 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.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
The Declaration came before any Constitution, and it set out precisely what the formation of the republic was based upon.

And the Treaty of Tripoli, thanks for asking:

"
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.​_Upon reading these words, it becomes extremely difficult to argue (as many attempt to do) that, by virtue of his signing the Treaty of Tripoli, Adams considered Christianity to be a non-factor in the founding of the United States._ *Furthermore, one line in the Treaty of Tripoli does not erase from history the scores of other quotes suggesting that the founding fathers considered Christianity to be, at the very least, a source of foundational principles and, at most, the clearly established (though never federally mandated) official religion of the United States*."
Three Conservatives - America&#8217;s Christian Heritage Debunked?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's easy, you stated "one of the first "christian" things they did was kill the natives and take their land..."  That's a lie. They actually bought land from the indians and lived peaceably with them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

"
For example, during his stint as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Maryland, Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and, ultimately, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following opinion during the Runkel v. Winemiller case:
Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.​Charles Carroll, yet another signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote the following in a personal letter from 1800:
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.​Even Benjamin Franklin, in a proposal for the education of Pennsylvania&#8217;s youth, wrote the following standard regarding how, under his plan, history would be taught:
History will also afford frequent, opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.​Truly, the list of examples could go on and on and on. I could point to some early states&#8217; taxpayer-funded churches, to Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s support of federal funding for Christian missionaries, to the consistent teaching of the Bible within early American schools, to provisions within early state constitutions requiring professions of faith prior to holding public office, and countless other illustrations of my argument&#8230; However, by now, the point is obvious. "
Three Conservatives - America&#8217;s Christian Heritage Debunked?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



  Roger Williams did (at first)...the Pilgrims did (at first)...William Penn did (at first)  That's the extend of it.

You want to explain WHY Pocahontas was kidnapped from her tribe?

How about King Phillips War?

Or the "purchase" of Manhattan from a tribe who didn't even live there?

Or this stuff by the Puritans:

The Puritans' "Christian" Agenda?

Or this by the Virginians:

Native American Genocide

Or this by the Pennsylvanians:

Paxton Boys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or why Jamestown was burned  (not by Indians):

Bacon's Rebellion


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

And the thread spins off into troll land.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "
> For example, during his stint as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Maryland, Samuel Chase, a signer of the *Declaration of Independence *and, ultimately, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following opinion during the Runkel v. Winemiller case:
> Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.​Charles Carroll, yet another signer of the *Declaration of Independence*, wrote the following in a personal letter from 1800:
> Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.​Even Benjamin Franklin, in a proposal for the education of Pennsylvanias youth, wrote the following standard regarding how, under his plan, history would be taught:
> ...



Um, Allie....You ARE aware that the Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document for this country, right?

And I am amused by you quoting people like Franklin (a deist) and Jefferson (who coined the phrase "separation of church and state).


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)




----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And the thread spins off into troll land.





Ah, that's right...you consider facts and evidence to be "trolling".   


Your idea of hard core debating skills is saying "whatever" and calling others "trolls".....I bet you won all the Debating trophies in HS, Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...


 
Yes, I am aware of that. We're discussing the FOUNDATION of the country. I don't believe the argument is over whether or not the Constitution says we're a Christian country. It's about whether the country was founded upon Christian principles. And it was, per the words of the founding fathers and the Declaration, where they announced to the world what they were doing. I.e., developing a country upon Christian principles.

It's a pesky document, that Declaration. I'm sure you wish it would go away.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Name the Christian principles our country is founded on....let's start there:

1.

2.

3.

4.

and so on

(oh, and your parting shot to a Retired Military vet is cute, Allie....tell us what YOU have done for this country besides mooch)


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And the thread spins off into troll land.
> ...


 
No, I consider changing the subject, posting logical fallacies, and revising not only the history of the country but the history of every thread you enter, as trolling.

You're a thread killer. And it's not because you're good. It's because you're chaotic and dishonest.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And the thread spins off into troll land.
> ...



She won them all by default!  All of her opponents and judges strangely enough sustained injuries scratching their heads to her responses and had to drop out.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Who is changing the subject?   Isn't the subject what this country was founded on?   Am I not posting evidence of our Founders and the history of this country's founding?



> posting logical fallacies,



What logical fallacies?   When I asked you to prove anything I said was wrong, you have yet to do that...just whine and say "whatever" and call me a "troll"...Deal in facts and proof, Allie....if you can.



> and revising not only the history of the country



What history have I revised?   Be specific and PROVE your point.



> but the history of every thread you enter, as trolling.



Ah.  Who's changing the subject now, Allie?   


> You're a thread killer. And it's not because you're good. It's because you're chaotic and dishonest.




IF I am a thread killer Allie, it is because I come on with FACTS and links to back up those facts.   You can't handle it...you whine, you say "whatever" when asked to prove your statements against my facts, you call me a "troll"...oh, did I mention you whine?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Thanks for admitting you lied.

You said the FIRST things the settlers done was steal land and kill the indians. I proved that was not the case.

FTR the Jamestown massacre was started by the Indians. Pocahontas was kidnapped to trade for the release of prisoners and provisions that were stolen. She later was baptised and took the name Rebecca and married Englishman John Rolfe and was credited with saving the life of John Smith.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Um...the FIRST ones were at Jamestown...and yes they did steal...as you can see from my links.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What was stolen?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Land...and food

Read this link...it talks about an Indian reprisal attack, but read what led up to it starting all the way back to 1608 when the Jamestown colony was the only English colony here:



Indian massacre of 1622 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and if you doubt the source, follow the reference links.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



First of all the indians didn't own the land, nor did they own the resources the land provided 



> Captain John Smith related in his History of Virginia that the Indians "came unarmed into our houses with deer, turkeys, fish, fruits, and other provisions to sell us".[1] Suddenly the Indians grabbed any tools or weapons available to them and killed any English settlers that were in sight, including men, women and children of all ages. Chief Opechancanough led a coordinated series of surprise attacks of the Powhatan Confederacy that killed 347 people, a quarter of the English population of Jamestown



I quoted this begrudgingly because I don't really trust wikipedia.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



How interesting....I'm sure they would beg to differ when it comes to them being kicked off their land.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It wasn't their land. The idea of owning land didn't exist in the indian nation. And as far as I can tell their still living in this country so they wasn't kicked off of anything. And thanks to government entitlements they are the poorest people in the country.  

The indians weren't the innocent people you want them to have been.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Did you not understand?

Nobody was taking anybody's land because the Indians didn't believe in "ownership" of land. The land was there for anyone who wanted to use it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
You don't come up with shit, Bod. Every person who has ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with you gets disgusted and leaves because having a convo with YOU means racing around begging you to state what you mean, and provide some verification.

I have provided a shitload of facts, links, quotations, etc. I almost always do, if I'm arguing something. This point has been proven irrefutably to anyone with half a brain. Just because you have no sense and no reasoning capability and can't understand what's going on does NOT mean the facts haven't been stated. This is a universal problem with the retarded left; you don't recognize truth. You don't have the slightest concept of it. It's impossible to argue with you, because you refuse to recognize fact and truth, period. Between you trying to convince whomever will listen that the fact that the Constitution doesn't reference God means that all the founding fathers were lying when they say they structured the country upon christian values, and dumbshit in the other thread saying that if i post video of lunatics behaving inappropriately I must prove to HIS satisfaction that the evidence isn't just imposters pretending to be foul, you guys have covered all the poles of stupidity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

So let's hit it again...no, the Constitution has no reference to God. Which is good, since we aren't a Theocracy. Disavow yourself of the notion that if we are based on Christian tenets, we must be a theocracy. That is not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just not true. I think maybe you think that being founded on Christian values means that the state is obligated to force Christianity upon the people, and since we don't do that, you think we aren't founded on Christian values. But that's a fallacy. The country can (and was) founded on Christian values. And NO WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY.

However, that in no way negates the fact that the Declaration of Independence DOES reference God, and that there are innumerable references to the founding fathers, various judges, and multiple other documents that DO state that America was founded ABSOLUTELY with Christian principles in mind, and with the understand that the principles of Chrsitianity and democracy ARE THE SAME. That men are born with inalienable rights, regardless of where they live, and first among those rights is the right to worship God as they see fit. THAT IS A CHRISTIAN PRECEPT right there, genius. Salvation is only afforded to those who willingly come to Christ. YOu have to choose it on your own. And that can only happen if you are free to do so.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Did you not understand?
> 
> Nobody was taking anybody's land because the Indians didn't believe in "ownership" of land. The land was there for anyone who wanted to use it.



Really? 

Then:  1)  tell that to the tribes who were territorial and fought territorial wars (more like skirmishes)
2)  tell that to the Europeans who now keep the Indians from their ancestral lands and shot them if they returned.


You two are really working hard to excuse what the early colonists did, many times in the name of their religion.

Next you'll be telling us that the Indians were treated fairly and they were the bad guys in all cases...while the European colonists were absolutely and totally benign, minding their own businesses and really owned all the New World land in the first place and what the heck were the Indians doing on THEIR land????


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> So let's hit it again..*.no, the Constitution has no reference to God*. Which is good, since we aren't a Theocracy. Disavow yourself of the notion that if we are based on Christian tenets, we must be a theocracy. That is not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just not true. I think maybe you think that being founded on Christian values means that the state is obligated to force Christianity upon the people, and since we don't do that, you think we aren't founded on Christian values. But that's a fallacy. The country can (and was) founded on Christian values. And NO WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY.
> 
> However, that in no way negates the fact that the Declaration of Independence DOES reference God, and that there are innumerable references to the founding fathers, various judges, and multiple other documents that DO state that America was founded ABSOLUTELY with Christian principles in mind, and with the understand that the principles of Chrsitianity and democracy ARE THE SAME. That men are born with inalienable rights, regardless of where they live, and first among those rights is the right to worship God as they see fit. THAT IS A CHRISTIAN PRECEPT right there, genius. Salvation is only afforded to those who willingly come to Christ. YOu have to choose it on your own. And that can only happen if you are free to do so.



What are those Christian tenets our nation is founded on again?


1.

2.

3.

4.

and add how many more you can think of.....


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Really?   And all my links?   You know, the ones that you said "whatever" to?   Still waiting for you to refute ANY of them.

And still waiting for you to list some of the Christian tenets you say this country is founded under.   I've asked twice (this makes three)


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

What links? The links to nonsense that have nothing to do with anything?

You're a troll. You post troll links.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What links? The links to nonsense that have nothing to do with anything?
> 
> You're a troll. You post troll links.



Bullshit...those links were historical FACTS and quotes from and about our country's founding  and the early colonies.


Now...again...what are those Christian tenets you say our country is founded on?

List:

1.

2.

3.

4.

and so on....


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

WHAT LINKS? You fucking moron. You posted a bunch of random "Christians are bad" links and you think that proves anything with regard to whether or not the country was based on Christian values?

You're an idiot.


----------



## Valerie (Apr 26, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...





This!


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> WHAT LINKS? You fucking moron. You posted a bunch of random "Christians are bad" links and you think that proves anything with regard to whether or not the country was based on Christian values?
> 
> You're an idiot.



None of my links are "Christians are bad" links...you just don't like them...and you can't even give reasons why they are wrong...I asked you to prove them wrong or at least point out what was wrong and you just go "whatever" (which is an evasion), you call me a troll (which is an evasion), you call my links troll links with no evidence they are wrong (which is an evasion), and you whine about me here and in other threads (which is the mother of all evasions).

And now you are reduced to calling me names.    

Still waiting for you to list those Christian tenets you say our country was founded on:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.

You DO know them, don't you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Already provided, troll.
YOu're doing exactly what you did to the last thread you ruined. Requesting the same shit, over and over and over, while never contributing anything whatever to the convo.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Already provided



Then it will be easy for you to link again or list again.



> , troll.



Poor Allie, all she's got is insults.



> YOu're doing exactly what you did to the last thread you ruined. Requesting the same shit, over and over and over, while never contributing anything whatever to the convo.



I stand corrected...she's got whining down too.

"BOO HOO!  YOU RUINED THIS THREAD!!!"   

"BOO HOO!   NOW YOU ARE MAKING ME PROVE WHAT I SAY!!!!!"


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Nope, not doing it again.

I will just carry on, though. 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (John Adams, taken from a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nope, not doing it *again.*
> I will just carry on, though.
> 
> "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. (John Adams, taken from a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813)




Of course not....

Because you never did and you can't....we've seen this drill before.   

BTW that quote doesn't list them either...

Poor Allie...you got nothing...absolutely Nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

She says with posted evidence sitting above her head like a big cloud.

What a loon.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> She says with posted evidence sitting above her head like a big cloud.
> 
> What a loon.





And you will now list those tenets...rather than talking about clouds.....right?


1.

2.

3.

4.

and so forth.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 26, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You should read more American history. George Washington was very much so a Christian.The majority that signed the constitution were Christian.
> The majority of Europeans that moved here was Christian. They moved here to practice their way of worship. The very first colonists were Christian's.



LOL, well, you are right about them moving here and they were Christian. No one disputes that. But your Pilgrim story is a fairy tale. They came here to get away from the Christian religon's influence in the European countries where your blood line, not your work ethic, determined your status in life.
That is what religion does. 
But they left the European governments, ALL dominated by Christian influence.
The Founders came here and devised our government without any mention of God in The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
The Founders ran from religous influenced governments. The English government we defeated was dominated by religion.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their varying religions.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Did someone dispute that?

Nope.

Can we get back to the subject? Which is...America was founded on Christian principles.

NOT that Christ is mentioned in the Constitution.

NOT that Plato held beliefs similar to Christian beliefs.

NOT that we're a theocracy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Did someone dispute that?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...



We have already defeated your "all men are created equal" Christian principle Allie.
What others have you offered?
When this nation was founded all men were not equal. So how was that practiced?
Slavery, indentured servants, women treated as property and second class citizens.
All Christian principles? 
Explain that one.
Or instead of going silently, researching the facts, read historical books and court cases of the day that still exist and maybe raise some suspicions of your ignorance, go ahead and post another whopper like that one and remove all doubt.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Did someone dispute that?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...





And those are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

and anymore you can list

Note:         Apparently the FEAR of having actually provide some kind of list of Christian Principles has put Allie into such a state that she had to neg rep me AGAIN....well, Allie.....so scared to have to actually provide EVIDENCE of your statements is that horrible, eh?

  

Remember that folks....Allie DOES NOT LIKE to be asked to back up her comments....Doesn't like it at all.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 26, 2011)

Trolling, trolling, over the bounding main...


----------



## peach174 (Apr 27, 2011)

See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
Once again minority ruling over the majority. It has done great harm.
We have many who have not been taught the full history of America. When God was taken out of the schools, the History of America was severely limited in what was taught because so much of our history had God referenced in it. Then it had to be rewritten so that basic history of America could be taught.
You who do not think that we are founded in Christianity need to go a library and read American History books written before 1963 and you will see the reference throughout those books about how much God and Christianity guided this nation.
When this ruling happened many said that this would dummy down our children's learning of our history. It certainly has come true.
It is absolutely shameful at how ignorant our children have become in our Christian heritage and foundation of America.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> Once again minority ruling over the majority. It has done great harm.
> We have many who have not been taught the full history of America. When God was taken out of the schools, the History of America was severely limited in what was taught because so much of our history had God referenced in it. Then it had to be rewritten so that basic history of America could be taught.
> You who do not think that we are founded in Christianity need to go a library and read American History books written before 1963 and you will see the reference throughout those books about how much God and Christianity guided this nation.
> ...



A fairy tale. Were you born before 1963?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> Once again minority ruling over the majority. It has done great harm.
> We have many who have not been taught the full history of America. When God was taken out of the schools, the History of America was severely limited in what was taught because so much of our history had God referenced in it. Then it had to be rewritten so that basic history of America could be taught.
> You who do not think that we are founded in Christianity need to go a library and read American History books written before 1963 and you will see the reference throughout those books about how much God and Christianity guided this nation.
> ...



Can you provide a reference where God and Christianity guided the nation?  Where history has been changed?


----------



## peach174 (Apr 27, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> ...



I just told you, go to a public library and read some american history books written before 1963.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> ...


 
This thread is FULL of quotes that show the founding fathers were guided by their Christian faith, liewinger.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 27, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> ...



Yes ,way before 1963.
Not a fairy tale, actual fact, like I said, go to a library and read anything written before 63 on American history. You will see how much has been omitted and rewritten.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

Gadawg doesn't clutter his mind with fact or waste time on research.

He gets everything he needs to know from left wing news outlets and his own fantasies.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> See this is what happens, look at how many have not been taught our full American history on this subject, when Madeline Murray O'Hair (an Atheist) got religion out of the public schools in 1963.
> Once again minority ruling over the majority. It has done great harm.
> We have many who have not been taught the full history of America. When God was taken out of the schools, the History of America was severely limited in what was taught because so much of our history had God referenced in it. Then it had to be rewritten so that basic history of America could be taught.
> You who do not think that we are founded in Christianity need to go a library and read American History books written before 1963 and you will see the reference throughout those books about how much God and Christianity guided this nation.
> ...



It must be sad to have a god so weak that they can be pushed out of the hearts and minds of people by one woman.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



No, they are cute little quotes, but where is the PROOF that they put that so-called faith into our Nation's framework, Allie?    You have given us NO proof yet...here:

PROOF that the Christian faith of founders were put into our nation's framework:

1. 

2.

3.

4.

and how many more items of proof you can come up with


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...





Care to give us some examples?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg doesn't clutter his mind with fact or waste time on research.
> 
> He gets everything he needs to know from left wing news outlets and his own fantasies.



Ah, going personal is a distinct indication that you've got nothing......all those blank lists I've given you to fill are another distinct indication of your lack of content.

Care to neg rep me again for speaking the Truth?   Feel free....it's getting to be badges of honor, like getting multiple Navy Achievement Medals.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
I'd say that when the founding fathers SAY they are framing the country on christian principle, that's the proof.

It's a shame you don't understand how this works, troll.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg doesn't clutter his mind with fact or waste time on research.
> ...


 
I'm out of rep, but never fear. I always neg liars and trolls for shitting all over history.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




You can say you are a Christian, but the proof is in what you write....there is no proof in any of your writing here that you are a practicing Christian,  in other words, your talk is cheap...

There is no proof in any of the Country's written framework that our government was built on Christian Principles.....unless you can list those Christian principles in our country's framework for us:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

The proof doesn't have to be in the Constitution. We have been over this already. The foundation of the country does not reside solely in the constitution. It is also considerations that were taken prior to the development of that document, when the ff were discussing how they wanted to structure the country.

And they concluded, en masse, that they could not found a country without Christian principle. Which is why they reference God in the Declaration, and why they seem to have unanimously have claimed that they founded it in Christian principle.

You can't get away from the words of the men themselves. They founded the country, they said they were applying Christian principle, that they could not create a free country without it. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION upon which this country AND THE CONSTITUTION was laid. No there is no reference to God in the Constitution because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. That's a separate issue, and one that is not being debated. 

So despite the ad hominem, despite the red herring, false premise and trolling, you can't get rid of the evidence. There is no question, despite your attempts to change history. The founding fathers based this country on Christian tenets. At least that's what they said, ad nauseum, and that is what we have to believe. I know you want to disregard them, and the Declaration...but too bad. Until you get the opportunity to actually get rid of those pesky records, you are just going to have to face the fact this is a ridiculous argument that you can't win because, well, you're lying and the evidence proves you're lying.

And trying to change the discussion so that it's just a discussion of whether or not this is a theocracy (it's not) and whether or not God is mentioned in the Constitution is not only dishonest, it's ignorant. While you may be easily befuddled with regards to the topic, I am not. If you want to pretend there's some sort of claim that we're a theocracy, you go right ahead and argue that. But stop pretending that claiming that the country was founded on Christian principles (as the founding fathers unanimously said) and claiming that we are or should be a theocracy are the same thing. They aren't. It's a false premise, and nobody except you has made the claim.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 27, 2011)

You can look at all of our historical documents and see the reference to Christianity.


American Thinker: The Judeo-Christian Values of America


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

It's already been posted. This is just the attempt by the left to subvert history and replace it, based on what they want people to believe about this country.

Ultimately, it's about changing the country to a socialist country. Since they are a minority, the only way they can do that is to lie about our history and pretend we've ALWAYS been socialist.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

I ask again...what Christian Principles/Tenets are imbedded in our Nation/our government:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.

And let's forgo the lip service, ok?   I want to see substantial facts of our government and or our government's actions....people can say anything they want...it's what is in the law and the country's actions that count.

So, let's see it.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It's already been posted. This is just the attempt by the left to *subvert history and replace it,* based on what they want people to believe about this country.
> 
> Ultimately, it's about changing the country to a socialist country. Since they are a minority, the only way they can do that is to lie about our history and pretend we've ALWAYS been socialist.



Replace WHAT exactly?   You have YET to give any Christian principles that were/are IN OUR COUNTRY's government.

Not one.

Still waiting for that list:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You can look at all of our historical documents and see the reference to Christianity.
> 
> 
> American Thinker: The Judeo-Christian Values of America



References...how nice.   People can say anything they like to pander to any crowd they want to....where is the Christian tenets in our early government?

Here...list them:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



And how is history being shit all over....

Give examples...factual examples plz

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

You shit on history just like you shit on every  thread you hijack. When you ignore fact and truth and replace it with propaganda and slime.

BTW, again....the Christianity/religion of the ff is not in question and has nothing to do with the premise that the country was based on Christian principle. The premise isn't supported by their faith but by their STATEMENTS.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 27, 2011)

bodecea...ignorance at it's finest.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea...ignorance at it's finest.



Maybe you can help Allie out, since you are so very smart....list a few of those Christian principles/tenets this country was founded on:


1. 

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You shit on history




Examples please as to where I got history wrong:

1.  

2.

3.

4.

etc



> just like you shit on every  thread you hijack. When you ignore fact and truth and replace it with propaganda and slime.



Here you are whining again.   Of course, this will bode well for some lucky posters when you work hard to spread some rep around just so you can neg me again....



> BTW, again....the Christianity/religion of the ff is not in question and* has nothing to do with the premise that the country was based on Christian principle.* The premise isn't supported by their faith but by their STATEMENTS.



Oh really?    Suddenly you are saying that the country was NOT based on Christian principles?    If that is what you are suddenly saying, then we have been in agreement all along, haven't we?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)




----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

Er, no, Troll..I mean Bod...that is not what I'm saying.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Er, no, Troll..I mean Bod...that is not what I'm saying.



Not seeing any evidence to back your statements...just name calling.

Surely you've got something substantial to back your comments?   You're not just lying.....are you?

  


I knew you could do it, Allie!   Worked real hard to spread that rep around so you could Neg me again.  You hate the Truth that bad, don't you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

I've backed up all my statements.You're lying when you say I haven't, and everybody that sees this thread knows it.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I've backed up all my statements.You're lying when you say I haven't, and everybody that sees this thread knows it.



You backed up your statements?   

How come these are so empty?

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


Here:    (space for Allie to avoid the Truth and neg me again)   _______________


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

Already backed up, linked, quoted, etc.

Troll.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Already backed up, linked, quoted, etc.
> 
> Troll.



You have quoted what people say....not what is in our government, not what has been enacted....talk is cheap Allie.

Where's the proof in our Constitution?

Where's the proof in ANY of our laws?

Where's the proof in the actions of our country?

Start your list of proof below:

1.

2.

3.

4.

etc.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea...ignorance at it's finest.
> ...



Those tenets have been linked to countless times. Try putting forth some effort.

Answer this why does the Constitution honor the Christian Sabbath? (Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



How odd, you can't seem to be able to put things on the list either...you just refer to some obscure posting in the past......sure....

Still waiting.   You're a smart guy, as you keep telling us how much smarter you are....let's see a few on that list.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



In other words, you can't answer a simple question.


Why bother with a list when the evidence has been clearly presented.  Ohhh... that's right, we're dealing with the mentally challenged.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

Just a troll. Using troll tactics.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



No it has not been presented, or you would find it easy to repeat it or give me a post number or a link.   And yet, you don't seem able to....and I thought you were a real smart guy.   How odd.

Here...again....list at least a few:

1.

2.

3.

4.

(or you can give a few post links or post numbers)


----------



## bodecea (Apr 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Just a troll. Using troll tactics.



Well, that not giving examples and using personal attacks seems to work for you.......no, wait.   It doesn't.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 27, 2011)

Why on earth you keep carping that I don't provide examples when PROVIDING EXAMPLES is one of the things I do every single day, and have for years, completely blows my mind.

I mean, of ALL the things to attack, why not attack me for something that could at least be possible....why on earth do you choose the one thing that anyone, clicking on any page of any thread where I'm arguing, will instantly see is bogus?

I flood this site with quotes, links, examples. So the question is...are you so fucking stupid that you just don't know what constitutes an "example", "truth", "fact" (this is my suspicion) or are you so ridiculous that you think that if you SAY I don't provide evidence, it will make people forget the evidence that I do bring to bear?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 27, 2011)

Before this descends any further into ridiculousness, can I get some clarification?

Allie, you say the country was founded on Christian principles.  Are you saying that's the only thing it was founded on?

You say the founders stated they were founding the country on Christian principles.  Do you mean all of the founders?

Would you accept the statement that the country was founded *in part* on Christian principles?

I don't want to involve myself too much in this argument if I'm unclear where you are coming from, and it just gets harder to discern as you and Bod get deeper into your spat.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You may as well give it up. You lost this debate long ago.

This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the undeniable proof is found in the FF's own words. Our declaration for independence makes it perfectly clear that our rights are given to us by our Creator. Our Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath even though it's a secular document. 

I don't know if it was you that mentioned Locke and Montesquieu as being instumental in building of this nation, but I think its important to note that even though these two men were quoted quite often by our FF's, along with Sir William Blackstone, the Bible was quoted more. 

Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founders quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent. 

Surprisingly, the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders quotes came directly out of the bible.

Sources: 

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988 

Now you can stick you head up your ass and dismiss the facts that are clearly laid out in front of you, but you can't change history.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 28, 2011)

If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress open with Christian prayer every day?
It has done so since the beginning of this nation.
Our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government in which our constitution was formed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

The Christian principles I was always taught as a youth in the late 50s in church were to be Christlike.
What about slavery, treating women as second class citizens, selling slaves and your own offspring from slaves; imprisoning, fining and beating women with children out of wedlock and forcing labor for decades on indentured servants is "Christian principles"?
The nation was not founded on Christian principles. And I am damn proud it wasn't. 
Love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek does not win revolutions. Anyone that believes so is is naive to the core.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

peach174 said:


> If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress open with Christian prayer every day?
> It has done so since the beginning of this nation.
> Our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government in which our constitution was formed.



Tell that to one of the Founders under the rule of the Crown Monarchy. Divine Rights by God is what the Kings declared.
The US Constitution defines our rights and LIMITS THE POWER of government. 
The First Continental Congress opened with a motion to prayer and this was objected to.
Guess why?
Your lack of knowledge about the history of this country is severely lacking.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 28, 2011)

The first continental congress did open with prayer and there is a painting of it.

The First Prayer in Congress


----------



## peach174 (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress open with Christian prayer every day?
> ...



You have been taught the revisionist liberal lie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress open with Christian prayer every day?
> ...


 

that's funny coming from you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Christian principles I was always taught as a youth in the late 50s in church were to be Christlike.
> What about slavery, treating women as second class citizens, selling slaves and your own offspring from slaves; imprisoning, fining and beating women with children out of wedlock and forcing labor for decades on indentured servants is "Christian principles"?
> The nation was not founded on Christian principles. And I am damn proud it wasn't.
> Love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek does not win revolutions. Anyone that believes so is is naive to the core.



Have you ever sat down and actually read the Bible?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

This nation was founded by Christian men.
This nation was primarily Christian at the time the nation was founded.
Christianity has played a positive part in the founding of this nation and still does.
Christianity has done far, far more positive things than not in the founding of this nation and the development of this nation. This nation does more things for more people all over the world based on those Christian principles. Amazing how many people here that claim this nation was founded on Christian principles want to end all foreign aid which is based on the very Christian principles they profess! 
This nation was not founded on religion. The founders went out of their way to oppose that. That fact alone has allowed Christianity to be such a positive INFLUENCE on our citizenry here and around the world.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

peach174 said:


> If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress *open with Christian prayer every day?*It has done so since the beginning of this nation.
> Our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government in which our constitution was formed.



It doesn't.


Next question?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I went to private Christian schools
Been voting Republican since 1972.
Try again next time with some facts.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > If the US. was not founded upon Christianity then why does congress *open with Christian prayer every day?*It has done so since the beginning of this nation.
> ...


 
Liar

Opening Prayer Archive, Office of the Chaplain

*Opening Prayer*

To view a prayer from a previous day of House proceedings, please select a month and year from the search menu on the left.
*04/18/2011
Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin*

A personal "Te Deum":

You are God: we praise You;
You are the Lord; we acclaim You; 
You are the eternal Father:
All creation worships You.
Save Your people, Lord, and bless Your inheritance.
Govern and uphold these now and always.
Day by day we bless You.
We praise Your name forever.
Keep us today, Lord, from all sin.
Have mercy on us, Lord have mercy.
Lord, show us Your love and mercy; 
For we put our trust in You.
In You, Lord, is our hope:
And we shall never hope in vain. Amen.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

*First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774*



 The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774 
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! 
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o&#8217;clock a.m.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Christian principles I was always taught as a youth in the late 50s in church were to be Christlike.
> ...



Tell us Allie what the Bible has to do with The US Constitution, the document and law of the land that this nation was founded on.
Bible classse were mandatory at the Christian schools I was educated in. I have relatives that are preachers dating back to the 1600s to the present.
They are proof positive that this country never interfered with or mixed religion with government. 
They do it your way in Iran. Delta is ready when you are.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Who's the liar now?   They've had Jewish, Hindu, and even Muslim and Buddhism prayers at times   (tho we get exclusionary bigots whining about it when they do)

Were you one of these bigots?   http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/hindu-chaplain-shouted-down-in-us.html

Oh, I stand corrected...no Muslim prayers or pagan prayers yet...the protesters would probably hurt them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is it. Now tell us why the first motion was objected to.
For what reason and why?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ask Allie what Christian tenets are in our Constitution and in our laws and in our nations' historical policies....that's when she:  1)  changes the subject,  2) calls you names, or 3) goes away for awhile..

What you will NOT get is examples to bolster her point.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Oh I see. Because there have been a handful of non-Christian prayers, you think that proves the country isn't rooted in Christianity.

Despite the fact that the founding fathers, the Declaration, and many other documents attest otherwise.

Nothing dishonest about that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
I already provided examples.

Lots of them. It's a shame you're such a liar.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



This is what you keep saying....and this is the only thing you say....

Allie:  "I already provided examples"  (deflection #1)

Me:   "Well, where are they?

Allie:  "You just have to find them for yourself" (deflection #2)

Me:  "Can you give a link, repeat them or post number"

Allie:  "Do your own work" (deflection #2)

Me:  "Ok, I looked thru the entire thread, don't see them"

Allie:  "Troll!" (deflection #3)

That's pretty much how Allie rolls.

2 Notes:  1) the above was a paraphrase (for anyone too stupid to figure that out)

               2)  I forgot to mention, after going thru that cycle, she'll neg rep you


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Really?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm not Allie. 

The argument isn't what the Constitution says or doesn't say. The argument is whether this nation was founded on Christian principles. And it was. The Constitution even honors the Christian Sabbath as laid out in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2, which stated in part,  If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (*Sundays excepted*) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Yep....it apparently is easier to SAY one had provided evidence than to actually provide evidence.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 28, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > *First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774*
> ...



A few objected and this is why;

American Revolution & Founding Era: First Prayer of Continental Congress Remembered

And then the Reverend gave the prayer.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Liar again.

Please link all those quotes.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Oh...and ONE of my previous quotes that establish that the US was indeed founded as a Christian nation, and what the tenets are:

In the words of the messiah himself:

"And the ideals on which they framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution &#8212; *that man is subject to the laws of nature and of nature&#8217;s God, that God created man equal and endowed him with basic unalienable rights, that human nature is sinful and therefore government power must be carefully restrained by the Constitution &#8212; are ideals that they derived, directly or indirectly, from the Bible. Some of these ideals may be shared by those of other religious traditions. But the Founding Fathers, with few exceptions, did not read the Koran, or the Upanishads, or the Bagavigita. They read the Bible, and they heard the Bible preached on Sunday mornings."

*

Obama: America Not a Christian Nation 
__________________


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Paraphrases....but please feel free to be offended.   That's how you roll.

(actually, I should have told you to go look it up yourself...but I'm not like you)


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm not offended. I'd be offended if I wasn't expecting a big fat lie and got one.

But I always expect lies from you, Bod. Just like to keep up my side of the bargain by continuing to point them out.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Oh, and PS..for future reference, since you're such a scholar and all, and I know it's important to you...

You don't use quotation marks for paraphrases.

And you still have to reference the material.

I don't expect you to do it. But again, just pointing it out...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 28, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Lonestar, I do admire your tenacity but your lack of knowledge about how politics works or your failure to admit that even in Colonial days politics was the norm shows once again.
Once again you prove my point.
President Washington was almost arrested in Massachussets one Sunday because travel was banned on Sundays. He was traveling to communicate with opponents and proponents of a bill that he may or may not veto.
The "Sundays excepted" clause was an executive move for it's inclusion in the Presidential veto power clause. The first draft of Artidle 1 Section provided for only 7 days within which the President could veto a bill and did not exclude Sunday. 
The final draft gives the President 10 days, and with Sundays excepted, 12 days to veto a bill.
The Presidential veto power is a qualified power, established by the Constitution and limited only by time, NOT by subsequent laws passed by Congress or the courts. 
There are NO religous reasons given by any of the Founders at the Convention for the wording of "Sundays excepted" in the official record at the Convention. 
Why? Convention members went out of their way taken great pains to not allow any mention of religion from the Constitution they were drafting.
The clause is silent about the purpose of the Sunday exception and does not recognize any day as the Sabbath. 
Now there were voices in the states opposing the reigous tests clause in the Constitution. They, just like you, claimed that this country was founded on Christian principles and that the no religous test clause would open up national offices to Jews, Catholics, infidels, etc. Even in his day many believed Jefferson to be an atheist, infidel or worse.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not offended. I'd be offended if I wasn't expecting a big fat lie and got one.
> 
> But I always expect lies from you, Bod. Just like to keep up my side of the bargain by continuing to point them out.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3580555-post1397.html

A #3


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh, and PS..for future reference, since you're such a scholar and all, and I know it's important to you...
> 
> You don't use quotation marks for paraphrases.
> 
> ...



Then I stand corrected...I would have expected people to figure out thru the dialogue set up.....you, not so much...............


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Another famous link to nowhere that proves..nothing.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Another famous link* to nowhere *that proves..nothing.





My link goes nowhere?   Let me check......


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and PS..for future reference, since you're such a scholar and all, and I know it's important to you...
> ...


 
You mean you expect people to know you're lying even though you pose it as fact?

Of course everybody expects you to lie, my dear. I just point it out for those who haven't seen you wallowing in the mire yet.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not offended. I'd be offended if I wasn't expecting a big fat lie and got one.
> ...



This link works just fine.


But maybe you just gave us another form of deflection....a #4, perhaps....lying about my posts and links.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

What exactly does the link prove, except that you're a liar?

You're linking to false quotes, that you've admitted are false. So what is your point exactly?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What exactly does the link prove, except that you're a liar?
> 
> You're linking to false quotes, that you've admitted are false. So what is your point exactly?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3580555-post1397.html

Another #3....picture no less.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly does the link prove, except that you're a liar?
> ...





I applaud you Allie for giving me neg rep for FOUR...count 'em!...FOUR days in a row.

A saint you are to all those you pos repped JUST so you could spread it around enough to neg rep me daily.


It's like getting FOUR Navy Achievement medals....my ribbon will run out of room for the gold stars.

Let's do it again tomorrow....looking to set a record.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 28, 2011)

Continue to troll and lie, and we just might.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 29, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Nice spin. But it doesn't hold water. The fact is the Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Continue to troll and lie, and we just might.



Theres Deflection #3 again.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



1.  Where does it say "Christian Sabbath"?

2.  Do all Christian churches use Sunday as their "sabbath"?

3.  Blue laws are antiquated leftovers from Puritan days...and are going bye bye (except in the silly Bible Belt)


----------



## Iridescence (Apr 29, 2011)

Silly?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 29, 2011)

Bod's not only ignorant, she's a bigot as well.

It's one of her more endearing troll qualities.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 29, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Never mentions the Sabbath.
Facts are a real bitch for you. Sorry about that. 
History 101 at your community college would help you.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Silly?



Did I stutter?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod's not only ignorant, she's a bigot as well.
> 
> It's one of her more endearing troll qualities.



Deflection #3 again, Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 29, 2011)

Yeah, ok.


----------



## Dr.Drock (Apr 29, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod's not only ignorant, she's a bigot as well.
> 
> It's one of her more endearing troll qualities.



Odd you view being a bigot as a negative, being one of the loudest and proudest bigots towards muslims on this entire board.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 29, 2011)

That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards a group of people who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.

Or do you like the idea of stoning women and selling them as slaves?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards a group of people who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> 
> Or do you like the idea of stoning women and selling them as slaves?



Are we doing a class on Bible history now?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 29, 2011)

Another example of trivializing the threat. Nice.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Another example of trivializing the threat. Nice.



Hardly....but I eagerly await you pointing out ONE Billion Muslims....ALL OF THEM...doing as you describe.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 30, 2011)

Why would I do that? I never made that claim. As far as I know, nobody has...


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Why would I do that? I never made that claim. As far as I know, nobody has...




OK, then please define who that "group of people" are you stated were "employing brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same."


----------



## Gadawg73 (Apr 30, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards a group of people who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> 
> Or do you like the idea of stoning women and selling them as slaves?



You do. The Founders whipped and beat women for having children out of wedlock and enslaved indentured servants adding extra years of servitude and beating them for getting pregnant.
You claimed these were "Christian principles".


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 30, 2011)

No I didn't, liar.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I do that? I never made that claim. As far as I know, nobody has...
> ...



Bump for Allie's clarification of who she was really talking about.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Hmmmm.


----------



## sinister59 (May 1, 2011)

christianity is not based on christianity .


----------



## bodecea (May 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Double Hmmmmmm.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards a group of people who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> 
> Or do you like the idea of stoning women and selling them as slaves?



Lol oh the world you live in Allie.  Where categorizing 1.7 billion people on the actions of the lowest .00000000001% and still believing you aren't a bigot.

You truly are the most entertaining poster on this board.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards a group of people who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> ...



I find it odd that Allie has not come back to explain who these people are whom she was referring to.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I wish I found it odd, sadly it's status quo (you probably actually agree).

Here's how her brain works;

1.) Accuse others of what she is (a bigot). I think the Freud-types call this "projecting."
2.) Make a post rationalizing her bigotry.
3.) When called out, run and stop posting on the thread.
4.) Rinse and repeat on another thread.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
What..people?

And I would LOVE the verification that violent acts of terrorism are the acts of the lowest .0000000000001% of the Muslim population. That's a great number. Please provide a link.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...




So you are going to go the "play dumb" route now, Allie?   I've asked you several times to define who those people are....I will even bump it again so you can run away again.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards *a group of people* who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> 
> Or do you like the idea of stoning women and selling them as slaves?



Who are these people, Allie?


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Muslim world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.6 billion muslims

How many do you think stone women and sell them as slaves?

1,000?  That'd be .000000625
10,000? That'd be .00000625
100,000?  That'd be .0000625

So take your choice, you judge 1.6 billion muslims based on the actions of whatever decimal you'd like to choose from.

If I judged christians based on what the worst 1% do, you would (and accurately so) call me a bigot but when you judge muslims off of what MAYBE (more emphasis than caps can provide) .0000625% of them do you feel completely legitimized in hating all of them and are free of the bigot tag.

It's just how your brain works, I've read enough of your posts to realize this.

Go ahead follow up with the insult, but anything I can do to open your eyes to your own irrational hate might help cure you of it.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards *a group of people* who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> ...



Oops....Allie's gone again.   How convenient.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

No, I'm not. bod's lying again...


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, I'm not. bod's lying again...



If you're here, why not answer a simple question that's been posed to you a dozen times?



Don't worry Allie, you'll have a lot of people you buddy up with on this board cheering you for admitting to being a bigot.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards *a group of people* who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> ...



Good...Allie's back....so who are these people you refer to, Allie?  Let's see if you actually answer now.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not. bod's lying again...
> ...



So...if I'm lying, that means Allie's posting stealth now...because when I posed the question again, she was not on line in this subforum.

Yep...she's posting stealth now.   I wonder if she ever will answer my question.   It would take backbone to do so.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards *a group of people* who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> ...



Bumping for Allie who has gone stealth.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's not bigotry, it's out and out hatred towards *a group of people* who employ brutal dehumanizing practices and want to force the rest of the world to do the same.
> ...


 
Oh, Muslims who follow and promote sharia.

Are you denying it? Is there another group of people that use these practices in the name of their faith? If so, I despise them, too.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I have no interest in reading this entire thread, but I think we both know that at least 50% of the world's Muslims subjugate women, just for starters.

I imagine you will deny this figure, and no I won't be back to argue semantics with you, there is no point in a conversation if you wish to lie. So go ahead and make up some numbers and then accuse me of running when I don't respond. Facts are facts. Islam shits on women PERIOD.


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



What percentage of the 1 billion muslims in the world would you put in that catagory?  Rough guess...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
What the fuck does "posting stealth" mean? Is that some troll code or something?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Why? 

This is a stupid game. 20 unrelated questions, By Bod, the stealth poster.

I guess. I assume you're a stealth poster, since you're using that term. One assumes it's because you're familiar with it.

Or maybe you're just bonkers.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



A VERY high percentage I would say based off of articles such as this.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

Oh, and guess what is really special. Those who practice Sharia would not only kill non Muslims, they would kill those Muslims who don't follow Sharia Law, as they don't consider them to be good Muslims.

Educate yourself before you attempt to speak of Islam.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 2, 2011)

Perhaps not technically  but the  abandonment of the Christian values it  was  founded on will  bring an  end to the nation.

John Adams:
 The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

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

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]


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

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Samuel Johnston:
 It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliots Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]


----------



## frazzledgear (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Wow people have really strayed from topic with this thread which was someone's stupid claim that our nation was not founded on Christian principles when in fact the writings of the more than 200 founders SPECIFICALLY detail how Christianity led them to design the system they did.  Those arguing otherwise have clearly never read the writings of those who spent years and years debating how to best incorporate Christian principles into the creation of our system, what our Constitution must and must not include all while still providing religious protections for all.  It was not founded as a theocracy which is a far different thing and the founders specifically rejected that as the ONLY way to protect all denominations of Christianity -which were viewed as different religions and not as one religion of "Christianity".  Remember this was a time when nearly everyone was a Christian, there were no Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and only a few hundred Jews at the time.  They were not interested in protecting non-Christians although they knew they would be doing so in order to protect all those who practiced the different Christian religions.  There is no such thing as Christianity being one religion - and among Christians even today, all those different denominations are all considered to be totally different religions.  Just ask a Baptist if he thinks Catholicism is the same religion as his own -or a Catholic if he thinks Mormonism is the same religion is as his own.  

Sorry for those who want to re-write US history and hope to eliminate any role that Christianity played in its founding -but its very founding was the result of Christian principles put into practice in the first place.  Those who like to pretend Christians actually want to impose a theocracy like Islam does are just full of shit -it is not consistent with Christian PRINCIPLES because there is no such thing as a "Christian" government to put in charge of it.  That is because Christianity is not a single religion but a label to identify HUNDREDS of religions -which are considered to be different religions even by the practitioners of those different denominations to this very day.  The founders rejected a theocracy NOT because they rejected the authority of Christ -but because they rejected the idea of placing one denomination (and its disputed doctrine) of Christianity above all the others[/B] which would open the door to future persecution of all the others just as happened routinely in Europe.  But that our system was founded on Christian principles?  ABSOLUTELY and you have to be an ignorant MORON not to know it because the founders left REAMS of their own writings and letters discussing how to best call upon those Christian principles, how a government might best utilize those Christian principles when put into practice and the role their own religious beliefs played in the entire process both on an individual level and among discussions and exchanges of letters between them.  Those writings still exist and all you have to do is READ them to know what a lie the assertion is made by the person who started this thread who wants a re-write of history in order to diminish the importance the fundamental religious beliefs of the vast majority had in the formation of this country!  The religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of ANY population are going to VASTLY influence what kind of society and government they form! DUH!  

Nearly to a one at some point in the process these founders discussed, expressed, repeated or wrote about their desire to create a system that best reflected the PURE teachings of Christ but WITHOUT imposing a specific religion on citizens -because no system based on Christian principles could properly reflect those principles without also respecting the gift from God of FREE WILL -a fundamental Christian belief that the individual not only has a right to govern himself, but MUST govern himself -both in his daily life and in his ability to freely choose the leaders who will lead his government.  This country was the first to be based on the RIGHT of human beings to govern THEMSELVES instead of one that assumed some people had a  "right" to rule over others.  "Free will" is an inextricable part of fundamental Christian doctrine that goes beyond the rejection of forced conversion as meaningless to God, but also means He gave us the RIGHT to self-governance and no one the "right" to RULE.  It is inextricably intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL Christian principle and belief that God wants us to voluntarily come to Him and His teachings and totally rejects what is forced as the worthless crap it is.  No other religion values the gift of free will to the degree Christianity or does and some outright reject it as a valuable gift from God and view it more as a curse.  

For example, in Islam their god wants other men to force everyone else to do their god's bidding, proscribes rigorous, rigid and inflexible control over members in every way and very specific harsh, brutal, barbarian punishment and even murder as the tools to do it.  Their god not only approves but orders stripping man of his free will and forcibly imposing their god's will on all others even at the point of a sword.  *MAJOR difference in the fundamental principles in the religious beliefs of a population will naturally produce MAJOR differences in the kinds of governments that can emerge from those principles.*  You really want to pretend Christian principles had nothing to do with the formation of THIS unique system of government  -then go try living under one that was born of Islamic principles instead and see if you can spot the differences!  The reason Americans, who were nearly ALL Christian at the time -claimed and still claim their rights are God given is because it serves as a very specific warning to those who seek power that what God has given us, no man has the right to take from us.  Go try telling the populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran about their God given right of self-governance, their right of free speech, their right to worship as they choose and I'll take bets on the length of your survival.  But before opening your mouth remember a recent poll following Mubarek's fall showed that 80% of Egyptians believed their non-Muslim minority deserved to be KILLED for being "infidels".  And just think -Egypt is far from being the most radical Muslim nation.  

Those claiming Islamofascist terrorists the ones who actually do the murders, represent some kind of MINUSCULE percentage of the whole are right -only a small percentage of the whole are willing to carry out the slaughter personally.  But the percent of Muslims who SUPPORT them in doing it?  TOTALLY different story!   

Unlike other religions, Islam is EXTREMELY specific about the obligations of the individual when it comes to other Muslims.  In Islam it is believed that Islam is the only "perfect" religion and Muslims the only "perfect" practitioners of any religion.  So in Islam, as the only perfect people on the planet, Allah would NEVER allow Muslims as a group to go wrong, do wrong, be on the wrong side -not ever.  NO EXCEPTIONS.  But ESPECIALLY not ever with regard to "filthy infidels".  In their bizarro world since ONLY Muslims practice the "perfect" religion  -what they do as Muslims is also "perfect" because their god would never allow the only "perfect" people to be on the wrong side or do the "wrong" thing.  Because that would mean if they are "wrong" or doing "bad" -that it is the infidels who are right and doing good.  Which is impossible in their belief system.  

The possibility that Muslims as a group are on the wrong side does not even exist as a possibility in their belief system EVER.  Only an individual can be wrong -but NOT the group itself and their religion is all about keeping the individual with the group.   Now this is where it gets interesting with regard to the responsibilities of individual Muslims as laid out in their religious doctrine.  It specifically says that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is NO issue here for Muslims to know who they MUST support in that conflict.  No real Muslim would ever support the non-Muslim side and any who does is not only wrong, but SO horrifically wrong many Muslims believe they would be deserving of the worst punishment both here and in the afterlife.  Going against other Muslims and supporting infidels against them is spitting in the eye of Allah who would never allow the only people he loves AS A GROUP, the only group of people to practice the only "perfect" religion and do so "perfectly" -to EVER be on the wrong side in any conflict with non-Muslims!  See how handy such a belief can be for all sorts of exploitation?

The individual Muslim already knows which he supports because his religion TELLS him which side he must support in such conflicts.  He doesn't have to think about it, no moral quandary for him.  When it comes to issues like murderous attacks on civilians, the majority -even if they don't support the idea -are NOT going to publicly condemn it!  At best they will just give their religious rationalization for it -one of those "yes its bad but the other side is so much worse Muslims are forced to do it."  A lot of people who are SO totally ignorant about this religion like to assign the same kind of traits and characteristics they know go with being Christian -as being traits of any and all people including Muslims, apparently ignorant that those are not only NOT valued traits in Islam, many are outright rejected.   Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about INDIVIDUAL salvation in the first place - that is a foreign concept in Islam.  So is the idea of "sin" which is never mentioned or the idea that God grieves over man's sins.  There is no repetition of God's Law has handed to Moses for a reason -Islam rejects it for its own law which favors Muslims at the expense of all others.  Which is why they get far more upset about a cartoon drawn by a non-Muslim than the deliberate mass murder of innocent but INFIDEL children blown to bits by a Muslim.  Their value system requires they place far, far less value on the life of a non-Muslim than the worst scum Muslim.  That is just the way it is.  They will rampage in the street looking for someone to kill - about only one of those.   A major difference in thinking is even the notion of God's love.  If you ask a Muslim if Allah loves him personally he might answer "only Allah knows".  But in Christianity God's love for each and everyone one of us is an inextricable, rock bottom hardcore principle of Christianity!  Christians believe as a fact that God knows and loves EACH of us as individuals -whether you love Him back or not!  Christians believe we will each be judged for what we have done as individuals but in Islam it is the group that their god loves and individuals will be judged for how well they performed _as part of that group_.  Speaking out against other Muslims to infidels would be viewed as not just undesirable -but treasonous to the group.  Their doctrine specifically says to keep any disagreements from being known by infidels who might use those to create even greater wedges within the Muslims community - and to present a united front.  And that means doing so even in the face of the pure evil repeatedly done in the name of their religion.   * You can see where these kinds of very fundamental differences in religious principles and beliefs would lead the practitioners of each religion to go in dramatically different directions when it comes to the kinds of governments they would create to live by and under! *  DUH!

There aren't three conflicts in the world that Islamofascism isn't at the root of that conflict -and you'd be hard pressed to find one that Muslims as a group do not pray for the success of the Muslim side in those conflicts in their mosques.  In their religion they would be WRONG not to pray for the success of Muslims in any conflict with non-Muslims.  There is no crime against humanity that is too horrific that would cause Muslims as a whole to suddenly side with non-Muslims in ANY conflict, not as long as they claim to do it in the name of Islam and not as long as their victims are non-Muslims and they claim to commit the horror in the name of Islam.  In addition they are taught that any internal disagreements NEVER take place in front of non-believers because they might use it as a wedge to try and divide them further.  So they must remain SILENT in front of the rest of us even if they actually object to the monsters among them hiding behind their religion out there raping children, butchering babies and blowing up unarmed civilians.  Because a united FRONT before us "filthy infidels" is more important than letting us know how many -if any at all -actually condemn these kinds of barbaric acts done in the name of their religion.  The problem is that Muslim extremists can EASILY find plenty in their religious doctrine to justify the most horrific acts against infidels while those who oppose it would have a harder time finding the religious justification for condemning it and that's a fact.  So as long as the extremists confine themselves to making non-Muslims the victims of their psychopathy -they can count on the bulk of the world's Muslims to pray for their success when behind the closed doors of their mosque and shovel plenty of money their way to help do it.  

A lot of non-Muslims tend to view all these different conflict as unrelated, individual conflicts.  But among Muslims they are all part of the same ongoing conflict, just different fronts on that same conflict -a conflict their religion promises THEY will win and tells them it is their destiny and their god's promise they will be the lord and masters over us all.  And if it means slaughtering us by the hundreds, thousands or even millions to get us to bow down to them and accept their claim to a  "right" to rule over us all -that's just too bad for the rest of us because their god has no problem with it.  The Koran is a book intended to be used to maintain GROUP control and keep the bulk of Muslims working to the same game plan to achieve power HERE ON EARTH.  A book that repeatedly warns the individual what will happen to him if he strays or deviates away.     

You doubt that -just compare the sound of CRICKETS you heard time and time again no matter who were the victims, even CHILDREN -as long as those being slaughtered were "filthy infidels".  Compared to the OUTRAGE if Muslim civilians were ACCIDENTALLY killed by an errant US bomb.  Or compare it to the DEMONSTRATIONS and KILLINGS over a fucking cartoon compared to the sound of crickets when it was THOUSANDS of Americans killed by Muslims.  That silence was deafening because it actually spoke VOLUMES and addressed the fundamental religious beliefs of these people.  What you get from people with regard to the kind of government they would seek to create is an INTRINSIC part of their religious beliefs.  And you really have to be an uneducated moron to not get that.  


And to underscore that, just consider some things.  Among US Muslims under the age of 30, 1 in 4 believes the suicide bombing of unarmed civilians is acceptable.  I find that appalling, frightening and downright scary.  Comparing Muslims from different western nations, the BARE majority of US Muslims say they are concerned about Muslim extremism (51%) -which means 49% of them are NOT concerned about it -which I find appalling as well.  But in France, Germany and Spain -all of which have significantly more trouble with Muslim extremism than we do here -nowhere close to half of their Muslims are concerned about Muslim extremism!  In the Middle East the percent who are concerned about extremist are single digits and in fact a Muslim who even publicly denounces or speaks out against Muslim extremism is likely going to get him killed. With no outrage in the Muslim community when he is.   

Of course the religious principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of any given population will absolutely determine what kinds of governments can emerge.   And for the ignorant who just can't grasp this notion -for pete's sake take a basic course in anthropology and get involved in educating yourself instead of indulging in wishful thinking. 


Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - Pew Research Center  1 in 4 US American Muslims under age 30...

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Rising Tide of Fury  "Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims."

Muslim Statistics - WikiIslam


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Ah, another neg rep....explain, Allie...if you will...why you keep negging people when they tell the truth?   Are you allergic to the Truth?  Is it painful to you?    Apparently so.


And as to being Stealth,...we all know you've been on today...where are you on the list of posters on in the last 24 hours?   Why, you're not there.   Stealth posters don't show up, do they?     You didn't know it would be that easy to check, did you?     

Hey, one question, Allie...if you keep negging me, how come my rep keeps going up?


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...





I didn't read your entire post. BUT as to your theory that this nation obviously wasn't you founded on Christian principles. You are dead wrong. This nation was founded entirely on Christian principles, it certainly was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy, but that is something entirely different than claiming it was founded on Christian principles. 

If you don't know the difference between the two , there is zero point in debating with you.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Please take your rep whines where they belong and keep this thread on track.

Thanks.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
The perfect troll post.

And re: stealth...I know I've been on today...? I've posted? So wtf are you talking about??? check WHAT? That I've been on? Was there a question about it? Who cares anyway?


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So, you plan on answering what percentage of all Muslims are the ones you think want Sharia, and therefore you fear?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

Why on earth would I do that? 

I asked for verification of someone else's bogus numbers. I don't see how that translates into a requirement for me to provide stats at your bidding. I never made a claim. I just asked a retard to back their lie up.

And obviously, they can't.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Why on earth would I do that?
> 
> I asked for verification of someone else's bogus numbers. I don't see how that translates into a requirement for me to provide stats at your bidding. I never made a claim. I just asked a retard to back their lie up.
> 
> And obviously, they can't.



Hmm, she is completely avoiding me, wonder why?


----------



## frazzledgear (May 2, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You are right -you didn't read it.  I specifically said it WAS founded on Christian principles and even explained why a theocracy was NOT consistent with those principles and was rejected.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > frazzledgear said:
> ...



My apologies, that is why I prefer not to write book length posts. Just get to the point.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 2, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



So the Constitution does not protect non Christians is your claim.
Sorry there dumbass but there is over 200 years of case law to prove your absurd claims without any fact or foundation. 
There is NO religous test of any kind in our LAWS. 
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their BULL SHIT ramblings on their various religions. 
It never ceases to amaze me how STUPID Americans are. The LAW clearly states what the LAW is and they totally ignore it.


----------



## frazzledgear (May 2, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




I can't argue that I don't have a tendency to wordiness when providing defense of my opinions when I am passionate about the subject under discussion.  Sorry but there is just no way to back up my position and assertion that this nation really was founded on Christian principles to just a sound bite.  I thought the discussion was significant enough to require a bit more than a stupid exchange of "yes it is" and "no it isn't".  Last time I checked that kind of "discussion" was just childish banter and therefore lacked anything of substance and was incapable of providing a defense of one's position as well as lacking the substance to persuade others.  But putting that aside - my assertion that this nation was founded on Christian principles was clearly stated in the very first sentence so that even if no one read beyond that they would instantly know my position.

I don't measure the quality of my life or the value of what others contribute to it by the number of words they use to express serious ideas -except for those times when I value brevity way more than I do the substance of the topic at hand.  There are times I do value brevity over substance -a 911 call would certainly be one of those times.  But this isn't one of them.  Substantive ideas and arguments and persuasive debate are never conducive to being easily wrapped up as an exchange of sound bites.  I've found that those who typically prefer "discussions" presented as sound bites are often the same people most likely to be incapable of rationally and factually defending one's position, incapable of carrying on a serious discussion of substance or even comprehending it -and I know you don't count yourself as one of those.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 2, 2011)

What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
Slavery?
Indendtured servitude?
Smuggling?
Selling your own offspring from the slaves you knocked up?
Beating the unwed mothers in your community?
What?


----------



## 8atman (May 2, 2011)

JoReba said:


> "You stated that you "believe them" when the Founding Fathers stated they were using Biblical principles to form America's governance. Are you naive and simple to "believe them" when they specifically cite no particular Scripture to demonstrate their statements?



Well, now. Theres a random, unsubstantiated line of reasoning. Can I try?

The Founders never cited any article/section/clause of English law that they based the Constitution on. Therefore, the Constitution has no basis in English Common Law.

Absolutely ridiculous.



			
				JoReba said:
			
		

> "For instance, Truman above did not cite specific Mosaic Laws from The Mount and did not show from Exodus, St. Matthew, Isaiah, and St. Paul what exactly were their words which supposedly were the basis for American Principles of Governance and Civility. Do you believe everything people say to you ... ? Do you like to listen to grandiose sounding and broadly visaged pronouncements without examining them for substance?



Yes, yes, we all know this is the current thought that we are told to believe: certain phrases and terms in, for example, the Declaration of Independence are merely grandiose sounding, and broadly visaged pronouncements, right? The Founders werent _really_ saying our rights are endowed by our Creator. No. Of course not. Surely, they were just trying to placate the citizenry with religious verbiage, correct? (...an argument that did not surface til sometime in the 1960s, by the way.) What they were _really_ saying is that the State grants us rights as it sees fit, when it sees fit, and how it sees fit.

Wait, but thats not what the document says, and there are inherent dangers with that position. More to the point, there is no evidence for this re-interpretation (not for this example or any other).

Surely, the fact that this country was founded by men who risked their means of making a living, risked their own lives and the lives of their families, and fled their homeland for the sake of religious freedom certainly supports the notion that their words are empty religious-speak.....doesnt it? Doesnt it?? Or is that little theory completely backwards?

Back to the statement that our rights are endowed by our Creator --is this just grandiose sounding language, or is the religious aspect the most important part? Is it throwaway language, or is the ideal that our rights come from our Creator necessary to the ideal that no man or government can take them away? To ask the question is to answer it.

Similarly, the ideal that our independence and freedom are rooted in the Laws of Nature and of Natures God is more disposable religious-speak, right? Or, rather, is the religious element IN-disposable to the notion of a right and just civil law? More on this phrase and the concepts behind it in a moment.

In other words, this is what the revisionist argument has degenerated to --the Founders didnt mean what they said. Moreover, the documents dont mean what they say. As you can see, they even go so far as to claim that you cannot point to a concept in the **insert name of founding document here** and then cite its Biblical source (which, of course, is demonstrably false many times over). Of course, this societal placation theory directly contradicts the Founders writings, both private and public. It is supported by nothing more than the desire of some for it to be true.

Now, back to our friend, JoReba. You are far from being off the hook regarding Trumans statement.

Come, now. Lets be honest, shall we? You werent even aware of that Truman quote. You had no clue that those specific books of the Bible were recognized as the basis for The Bill Rights, did you? 

So, now your only recourse is to try and posture as though, Golly, thats just not specific enough --as if Truman, or anyone else, had provided chapter and verse you would have actually said, Oh, okay. The truth of the matter is you were under the impression there was no answer to your challenge.

Finally, getting back the phrase, Laws of Nature and of Natures God, this goes to the heart of the issue. Revisionists have done their most strenuous somersaults to divorce the phrase from any sort of Biblical context. The only issue at hand is, what did it mean to the Founders? What did they believe it to mean?

The Founders took the whole concept of Laws of Nature and of Natures God and the supremacy of Gods Law from English Common Law. William Blackstone was the leading authority on English law in his day. He was widely followed and borrowed from by the Founders. Blackstone understood that English law (and later American law) had its roots in Gods law. Blackstone and the3 Founders believed that Gods Law took expression in: nature (the creation especially man and his natural desire for freedom), and revelation (which for Blackstone and the Founders would be the Bible). With these concepts in mind, Blackstone explains that which constitutes just civil law:

*Sir William Blackstone*
This Law of Nature dictated by God Himself is superior to any other...No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original. Upon these two foundations the Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation depend all human Law...Human laws are only declaratory of and act in subordination to Divine Law.

(Gee, I guess Blackstone was trying placate English law students with broadly visaged pronouncements.)

Moreover, Gods Law as found in nature or revelation is immutable and absolute. Any government or law of man cannot rescind or violate it. This is the ideal that our rights are based on, that our nations laws may not encroach, and why those rights are unalienable. Sound familiar?

Therefore, we can easily see that the verbiage which you so greatly desire to brush aside as superfluous and grandiose was viewed by the Founders (and the philosophers they borrowed from) as the cornerstone upon which everything rests.


All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God...Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.

--*James Wilson*, Signer of the Constitution and US Supreme Court Justice.


----------



## 8atman (May 2, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> "If we continue to teach our children about tolerance and intolerance rather than good and evil, we will end up with an entire generation that tolerates evil. Tolerance is the last virtue of a degenerate society."



That just rules all over the place.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
> Slavery?
> Indendtured servitude?
> Smuggling?
> ...



Our country was founded on NONE of those things. I suspect you know that.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> So, you plan on answering what percentage of all Muslims are the ones you think want Sharia,r?



scripture says 100 % .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 2, 2011)

frazzledgear said:


> "If we continue to teach our children about tolerance and intolerance rather than good and evil, we will end up with an entire generation that tolerates evil. Tolerance is the last virtue of a degenerate society."


nice


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
> ...



How odd that they were all there and most sanctioned by the government from the founding.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 2, 2011)

But have nothing to do with the tenets upon which this country was founded.

And likewise are not Christian tenets. The claim that they are is a lie.


----------



## TheBrain (May 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



LOTS of things were present at the founding of our country, but were not tenents of our country. 

The Bill of Rights, there is your tenants of our country. Hmm coincidence that there were 10 Commandments and 10 original amendments ? I think not.

You can recognize that our nation was founded on Christian principles without being a Christian yourself you know? In fact many of my friends are not Christians, and yet they have the same moral code as I do, essentially anyway. 

Maybe you're too simple minded to understand that concept, I don't know.


----------



## frazzledgear (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No one else is responsible for your refusal to educate yourself if this is what you truly took away from both our history and the words of our Constitution honey.   You totally missed it and most of us know it was a deliberate choice that you did -because the truth just doesn't serve that agenda of yours, does it?  

While no people are perfect and therefore cannot possibly create a perfect system of government or possess a "perfect" history -unlike the vast majority of nations on this planet, our founders did create the peaceful means for all future generations to correct those mistakes as they became aware they were mistakes.  It is far more important that a people have the means to fix any mistakes as they come to see them as errors -than it is to be stuck with them forever or rely on the use of violence to change them.  What mental defect do you have that led you to believe whatever social ills existed at the time were actually our founding "principles" -you MORON.  Get real.  

You seem to be under the impression that our history is among the worst when stacked up against the rest of the world -which only tells me you are ignorant of world history on top of everything else.  Our history stacks up quite favorably when compared to that of other nations and better than most.  But of course you actually have to study that history to find that out and its pretty obvious you haven't.  You seem to suffer from some delusion that all other nations must have moved seamlessly from cavemen to being the "wonderful and far more superior to the US" nations you want to pretend they all are today -with no pit stops of less than stellar events in their history!  Aside from the total waste of time it is to judge past societies by today's current morals, let's just totally ignore something far more significant -say the more than one billion people slaughtered by their OWN governments in just the last 80 years or so.  Many of which I have no doubt you think still do it better than the US!  LOL  Because we all know its far more important to pretend that because it existed at the time as a common means of repaying debt, indentured servitude was a founding principle of our country?  Are you for real?  You obviously have a deep seated NEED to view the US in as poor a light as possible for your own dark reasons and want to pretend the US is the cause of all the world's ill when in reality our very existence has prevented far more wars than we have engaged in, ignore the fact we feed about 1/4 the world's population -nearly all of it with no strings attached and NO other people on the planet and certainly no government on the planet comes close to matching the donations coming straight from Americans' pockets to those hit by disasters.  If we got it wrong and we do it all wrong - why is it no other people and no government on the planet comes close to matching what Americans PERSONALLY donate out of their own pockets to those in need elsewhere on the planet?  Surely people and countries who do it better than the US would surely do that better too.  If you think you found someplace that does it better and people you'd rather be with -then Americans being the generous people they really are, would tell you -MOVE THERE and be happy!  And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.  Whereas nearly half of all countries on the planet would imprison or even kill you if you tried.   

What you chose to pretend actually represented the principles of our founding in reality said something far more important but nothing good about you -and nothing about our founding principles whatsoever.  I don't know why anyone is wasting their time -you are clearly an ideologue incapable of being reached by full facts and instead want to pretend that the current social ills -social ills that were not confined to just this country by the way since they were not our inventions - were somehow also the "principles" behind its foundation.  That goes way beyond intellectual dishonesty.  Gee, doesn't that mean since smallpox was common back then and we now know its spread is associated with the kind of less than hygienic living conditions of the time also mean poor personal hygiene was also a "founding principle" of this nation?  LOL  This kind of bullshit may serve your own agenda -but it doesn't serve the truth one bit.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
> ...



No kidding.
Now tell us what principles we were founded on.
And which laws have their foundation in RELIGION?
Religion has nothing to do with the writing of The Constitution.
Many tried to inject religion into it.
That side lost. We don't do it that way. Our nation was founded ON LAW, not men and their various religous beliefs.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 3, 2011)

I'm just glad Allie has come to grips with her bigotry, she's seen the light.  She's spent the last few posts justifying it, she's had no desire whatsoever to deny being a bigot.  

TheBrain also, another proud bigot.

This is why it confuses me that you see the word bigot as an insult, Allie you're a loud and proud one.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

I firmly believe that if Allie was sat long enough, was focused on objectivity and history and would admit the difference between a nation that was predominantly Christian and the nation wanting to get away from the European model of religous influences in government she would grasp it.
Probably the same with Brain but don't know him well.
Allie's problem is the blinders are one and she is a fighter.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> But have nothing to do with the *tenets upon which this country was founded.*
> And likewise are not Christian tenets. The claim that they are is a lie.



Which are????   Give a few please....finally...at long last...after pages of asking....


----------



## editec (May 3, 2011)

Of course the USA was not founded on Christiantity.

It is a founded on the principles of a SECULAR STATE.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.

1.  Equality for all (ok, maybe not for all...yet)....NOT a Christian tenet

2.  Democracy....NOT a Christian tenet

3.  Limited Government...NOT a Christian tenet

4.  Rights not given, but protected by government...NOT a Christian tenet

5.  Government by the people...NOT a Christian tenet

6.  Citizen politicians...NOT a Christian tenet

7.  Classless (well, at least not by birth) societ...NOT a Christian tenet

8.  No government sanctioned religion...NOT a Christian tenet

9.  Impartial judgements with habeas corpus, no ex post facto...NOT a Christian tenet


feel free to contradict or even add to this list...I know it's imcomplete.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

editec said:


> Of course the USA was not founded on Christiantity.
> 
> It is a founded on the principles of a SECULAR STATE.


 
So the founding fathers were lying when they said otherwise.



Even more funny...you and Bod think you *know better* than the founding fathers.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.
> 
> 1. Equality for all (ok, maybe not for all...yet)....NOT a Christian tenet
> 
> ...


 
Another retard who thinks she is better versed than the founding fathers  on what the country was founded on.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.
> ...



I fail to see you refute or contradict any of those things, Allie.   At least I listed the tenets I think this country is founded under....you can't seem to list anything.  All you can do is make vague comments, lie, hide, neg, lie, vague comments, insult, lie, neg, hide, make vague comments, lie, hide, insult, hide, neg, and insult.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

I don't bother contradicting most of the garbage you spew, bod. What's the point in arguing with a liar?


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't bother contradicting most of the garbage you spew, bod. What's the point in arguing with a liar?



You can't contradict because you know it's correct....but feel free to continue to hide, lie, insult, neg, make vague claims, evade, lie, neg, hide, insult....etc.


It's SOOOOOO convincing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

No, that's you, bod.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, that's you, bod.



You've got Mad Debate Skills there, Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

This thread officially became a troll thread the minute you guys joined up.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.
> 
> 1.  Equality for all (ok, maybe not for all...yet)....NOT a Christian tenet
> 
> ...



Please feel free to explain to us how ANY of those things are not Christian in nature. You posting that they aren't isn't enough.

Seriously you idiot,  do you even think before you post, or do you just vomit the first though that comes into your head and try to pretend like it's an intelligent response.

Now I've read a few of your posts, and I know you like to avoid and tap dance when asked questions you don't like, but I won't play that game with you . Either respond and tell me exactly how those 9 items are not Christ like, or admit that your entire stance is a sham. 

I suspect the truth is that you are uneducated buffoon who is attempting to make up for inadequacies by posting nonsense on a message board and taking advantage of the fact that there is always an idiot who will agree with anything anyone says to bolster his self confidence. Let me inject some reality into your fantasy world. You are not smart, in fact it is evident that you are an idiot since you don't even know the difference between a nation founded on Christian principles, and a theocracy.

Oh by the way. THE main tenet of our nation is charity. NO ONE can deny that. We are and always have been the most charitable nation on the face of the Earth; and charity is most definitely a Christian tenet.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> This thread officially became a troll thread the minute you guys joined up.



Dang, I left out the whining posts you do.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.
> ...



That is proving a negative....tell you what....show us where ANY of those things are in scripture as a tenet of good Christianity.   That would be a good start, don't you think?



> Seriously *you idiot,*  do you even think before you post, or do you just vomit the first though that comes into your head and try to pretend like it's an intelligent response.



Ah, I see you've been to the Allie Baba School of "attack the poster rather than address the post content cause I've got nothing."



> Now I've read a few of your posts, and I know you like to avoid and tap dance when *asked questions you don't like*, but I won't play that game with you . Either respond and tell me exactly how those 9 items are not Christ like, or admit that your entire stance is a sham.



Such as?   



> I suspect the truth is that *you are uneducated buffoon*



Pretty ironic (and funny) that.



> who is attempting to make up for inadequacies by posting nonsense on a message board and taking advantage of the fact that there is always an idiot who will agree with anything anyone says to bolster his self confidence. Let me inject some reality into your fantasy world. You are not smart, in fact it is evident that you are an idiot since you don't even know the difference between a nation founded on Christian principles, and a theocracy.




Way to address the content of my assertions on American's founding tenets, Buckaroo.  



> Oh by the way. *THE main tenet of our nation is charity.* NO ONE can deny that. We are and always have been the most charitable nation on the face of the Earth; and charity is most definitely a Christian tenet.


Where is it in the Constitution?   In our founding documents?   I look forward to the evidence in that regard.   Thanks in advance.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the USA was not founded on Christiantity.
> ...



You are the one claiming that THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is a lie.
That document is what founded this nation, not words for political gain.
Show me one word or sentence the Founders stated that has been used as a foundation of the laws of this nation. 
Show me one word or sentence the Founders used about God, religion, Christianity that has stood the test of time and has been a foundation in the laws and construction ofour government and nation.
Just one.
Words are cheap. THE LAW is what this nation was founded on. THE LAW is what protects you from the words of TYRANTS be they Christian or otherwise.
Shame on you for taking your freedom for granted. Men died for it protecting the rights of others and you turn your back on it and lay your claims on words instead of THE LAW that rules the land, protects you and was the foundation of America.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yep, the old dance of the uneducated. I didn't ask you to prove a negative moron. You made 9 claims, I asked you back any SINGLE one of them up.

What a dishonest piece of shit you are.

I won't address you further in this thread unless and until you respond to requests for proof of your claims. So probably never.

Good day


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some of the Ideal tenets our country was founded on.
> ...



Don't you know that when this country was founded that every country in Europe was dominated by Christianity and that is what the Founders ran from, didn't want and purposely founded the laws of this nation exactly the opposite of?
If you don't know that then you know no history.
Don't you know that Christian influenced nations all over Europe at that time were founded on the Christian principle of divine right? Do you know what that is and howour country was not founded on that? Explain that and why the Founders opposed that.
Don't you know that the concept of citizen politicians was NOT what the European nations of that time with their monarchies had? Those societies were all closed class societies. No man there could get into government unless he was of the upper class of society. Those were theChristian principles of the day, the full support of the monarchy.
Ya know dude, the folks we fought against and had a revolution against.
You believe the European Christian backed religous divine right monarchies all over Europe had "equality for all"? 
That they had limited government run by the Christian churches in Europe?
We were THE FIRST government FOUNDED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED CHRISTIANITY.
Guess why?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You're a dumbass.

Those that fled England was wanting religious freedom. They wanted a chance to worship freely and have an opportunity to choose which religion they wanted to take part in.

Maybe you should read a history book!


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You are wrong about a few historical facts my friend. 

The founding fathers were not running from Christianity, they were running from a state sponsored religion. Can you not see that they are not the same thing?

Also, by the time the pilgrims came to America England, you know the nation most of us descended from , had in fact already recognized a little document, you may know it, The Magna Carta, which essentially gave rights to all. Well all whites male adults anyway, but that was a sign of a backwards people, not one of religion.

Again, you are completely mixing two ideas here, and unlike some you seem like a pretty smart guy, so I'm confused.

Yes, if you are saying we were not founded as a Christian theocracy, you are absolutely correct. The founding fathers made it abundantly clear that they wanted nothing to do with a government that told them how to worship or even if they COULD worship. 

But they also made it clear that we the people recognize that there is a God and that He has given us certain principle and morals that we should live by and that we as a nation would abide by those laws. 

Acknowledging the latter does not mean we reject the former.

This idea that Christians want anyone to admit that we are a nation formed on Christian principles so that we can turn this country into a Christian theocracy is laughable.

I'm happy to debate the historical aspect of this all day long with you, but ONLY if you can admit certain facts which are indisputable. Just as I wouldn't expect you to debate me on this if I were insisting that we are a Christian theocracy.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Come on bro, he's wrong, but he's being semi reasonable, no reason to attack him in such a way. Now that pirate thing? Attack away, he's illogical and stupid.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I'm gonna guess without peeking that you will be negged or insulted for that post....but NOT disproven.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I win!   



> Those that fled England was wanting religious freedom. They wanted a chance to worship freely and have an opportunity to choose which religion they wanted to take part in.



WITHOUT government interference...as Gadawg said.   (Except for the Puritans who ran a theocracy for a time and really turned people off to religion in government)



> Maybe you should read a history book!



May I suggest you read a history book AND read his post?   You pretty much confirmed what he said about how our founders felt about government running religion and religion in government.
  You pwn'd yourself this time.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Ah...no it didn't.  It gave some rights (due process) to a very select few....the nobility and freemen....and some very interesting religious clauses in ther about jews and the independence of the English church (not to be confused with the Church of England formed centuries later)


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I read his post and he's as wrong as you are ugly.

This nation was built on Christian principles by men of faith. That is a fact and no amount of your whining will change that.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

This topic can't be argued intelligently here because the principal posters will not deal in fact.

Whether or not the US was founded upon Christian principle is the debate.  Bod and most others who claim that it is not are also equating, either intentionally or not, a Christian foundation with a theocracy. The fact that they cannot frame the actual question in the first place, or even reflect what is being debated accurately, means there is no way to debate intelligently with them. They refuse to talk about the actual debate topic, and instead keep picking up different topics (some real, some completely crazy stuff from their own heads) and talking to THOSE points....and then claiming that they are actually addressing the actual issue.

When you have people who just ignore fact consistently (Bod, pick any post of hers and I'll show you a lie or a complete disregard for the truth) you can't have an intelligent convo with them. They will pretend it's happening, they'll claim they are winning, they will completely lie about things that were discussed (or not) two seconds ago, and pretend that's the truth.

Examples: 
bod saying she didn't say something...that is actually quoted and and referenced in the very same post she's denying it.

Bod claiming that I don't provide verification or links, and blithely stating the same lie over and over, even as a reply to posts that have quotations and links embedded.

someone stating something as a fact/truth that is patently untrue....For example, bod running around from thread to thread, posting insane tripe like, "Why are you so disappointed that Osama is dead?" "All the rightwing is really upset that Osama is dead"...when not one rightwing person has given any indication of that. 

I don't even know what that's about. I think it's just disturbing.

Anyway, there's no way to argue intelligently with someone who is like that. Sky was the same. It's pure, unadulterated craziness. I've been around a lot of crazy, manipulative and just nutso people and that's exactly the way they function. Nothing that comes out of their mouths is sane, true, or even useful, in most cases. Sometimes they are intentionally lying, and sometimes they really believe the stuff they say..after all,they live in an alternate universe.

But you can never make them face a fact or accept a truth that they don't like. They won't do it. It's part of being schizo. You change reality...sometimes to something you like better, sometimes to something worse. But you don't understand reality, and it's impossible to debate a person like that.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Pearls before swine. Gadawg is not the person to waste niceties on.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> This topic can't be argued intelligently here because the principal posters will not deal in fact.
> 
> Whether or not the US was founded upon Christian principle is the debate.  Bod and most others who claim that it is not are also equating, either intentionally or not, a Christian foundation with a theocracy. The fact that they cannot frame the actual question in the first place, or even reflect what is being debated accurately, means there is no way to debate intelligently with them. They refuse to talk about the actual debate topic, and instead keep picking up different topics (some real, some completely crazy stuff from their own heads) and talking to THOSE points....and then claiming that they are actually addressing the actual issue.
> 
> ...



Which is exactly why I stopped responding to that dude Bode you say? He's completely irrational, not very smart, and just plain argumentative with no basis for being so. Sad guy if you ask me.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Gadawg has been decent to me, so I shall return the civility. What others think of a person is irrelevant to my own feelings towards them.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I win again!   



> This nation was built on Christian principles by men of faith. That is a fact and no amount of your whining will change that.



What were those Christian principles then....maybe YOU can enlighten us.   

And what faith were those men of faith?   What church did they regularly attend?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

That's like the 150th time you've asked a question that has already been answered, many, many times.

When someone has no retention, they're either lying, or they suffer brain damage.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



YAY!!!    Allie comes thru again.   

Same time tomorrow, old girl?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Every day until you either leave or quit trolling.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's like the 150th time you've asked a question that has already been answered, many, many times.
> 
> When someone has no retention, they're either lying, or they suffer brain damage.



No that question has not been answered.   You know it, I know it...but it IS kind of cute how you are trying to rescue Lonestar_Logic from actually having to provide us with some of those "Christian Principles."   I was under the impression he could handle himself......maybe not?


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Every day until you either leave or quit trolling.



Can't deal with the Truth?   Well, we will see you daily then, won't we?   Others are going to be DELIGHTED....you are being fair with your distribution, I hope.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

It's been posted. And reposted. Along with the statements from the Supreme Court and the founding fathers that prove, beyond any doubt, that the US was founded on Christian tenets. There's no guessing here, the founding fathers said it, over and over. The Supreme Court said it. Abraham Lincoln and Obama said it.

Why do you feel compelled to lie about something that isn't even ambiguous?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




So those that fled England were the ones that wrote the Constitution and were the Founding Fathers?
And you claim that I am the dumbass.
You are off about 300 years there Lonestar. Better luck next time.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Well that might be if that's what he said.

Of course it's not. 

Another lie is born.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Did I say that?  No I did not. Not only are you a dumbass but a liar as well.

I simply schooled you a little on the facts why some fled England to come to the New World. Not to run away from Christianity as you claimed, but to gain religious freedom.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Religious freedom from what?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

From the state telling them they couldn't practice their religion.

What does that have to do with whether the country was built upon Christian tenets?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Lonestar, respectfully, you need to quit while you are ahead. You are the one that brought that up, not me. 
How is a nation FOUNDED on Christian principles 300 years before it even existed?
And you are the liar if you are stating I ever said anyone ran away from Christianity. 
WHAT I HAVE SAID A THOUSAND TIMES IS: They ran away from CHRISTIAN meddling and INFLUENCE in their governments and ran hard. 
The Founders were tired of the Christian religous influences in their GOVERNMENT for 300 years. 
What I find amazing is your lack of common sense. English government and the monarchy was big time influenced by the Christian religion and you claim that we had a revolution not to get away from that. 
The nation was FOUNDED ON nothing to do with religion. And that fact has NOTHING to do with the fact that we were a predominantly Christian nation, the Founders were mostly Christian and that Christianity is a good thing.
As long as you do not found a nation on it or any religion.
You need to take a good, long, hard look at the court cases and individual colonies and how they totally allowed Christian religous influences into their court systems.
THE FOUNDERS ENDED THAT. 
Something about THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document you take for granted as you value YOUR religion more than the rights of others.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> From the state telling them they couldn't practice their religion.
> 
> What does that have to do with whether the country was built upon Christian tenets?



Why do you waste your time with a dishonest little whiny turd like Bode. He's obviously a stupid pathological liar. Not worth the effort. He's too stupid or dishonest, possibly both, to know the difference between fleeing from state sanctioned religion and running from a specific religion.

He truly is pathetic, and this conversation is eons above his head. He should be embarrassed by his stupidity, but alas I fear he really thinks he's smart.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > From the state telling them they couldn't practice their religion.
> ...



Labeling yourself "The Brain" here in this forum you would never be one to believe yourself as smart would you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It figures you would need "religious freedom" explained to you.

Educate yourself. Google is your friend.

I will say that the early Pilgrims were English Separatists who had founded Plymouth Colony in 1620 and were fleeing religious persecution, they broke away from the Church of England because they felt the Church violated biblical principles of true Christians.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > From the state telling them they couldn't practice their religion.
> ...



I win again!   


Now tell us the Christian principles our government was founded on....


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




sir you are wrong. they did not run from Christianity specifically. they ran from state sponsored religion in general. They DID want a separation of church and state, that is obvious. But just as obviously they didn't want to divorce themselves from Christianity altogether, we know this because the overwhelming number of them remained Christians, of one sect or another. 

You're playing semantics here and I'm trying to believe that you just aren't understanding what I am saying, but I've already written off your homeboy Bode as a lost cause, and am about to do the same with you. 

Again, I love to debate history, but if you refuse to even admit that there is a big difference between leaving to escape no freedom of religious and leaving to escape Christianity; I am at this point prepared to declare that you are unworthy of continued conversation.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I'm not asking for the definition, Lonestar.   



> I will say that the early Pilgrims were English Separatists who had founded Plymouth Colony in 1620 and were fleeing religious persecution, they broke away from the Church of England because they felt the Church violated biblical principles of true Christians.



So, tell us.   Why did the Church of England persecute them?   What gave the Church of England the power to persecute them?


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




My Lord doesn't tell me I can't point out when someone is a liar, a whiner, or stupid. You sir are all three. That's your problem, not mine. 

Oh, and at no point has ANYONE ever claimed that ANY Christian not named Jesus Christ was , is, or will be perfect. So if YOU are disappointed that a Christian is not perfect, that is also YOUR problem.

You whiny , lying, stupid asshole.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



True.
So which version of Christianity were we founded on?
Are you claiming the Founders and ALL Americans were English Seperatists?
At the time of the revolution there were dozens of Christian beliefs and denominations in the colonies. MANY and most that conflicted with each other.
So who was it that sorted it all out and determined who was right and who was wrong?
See how flimsy your entire argument is?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



They will NEVER admit that it WAS THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION that persecuted them.
And the POWER that all European governments AND ENGLAND had at that time was THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION influencing the governments.
And we defeated that.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Most of them were, and the reason they left was because at THAT time disagreeing with the Church of England was an act of treason, plain and simple. It was considered to be no different than telling the King no. It was your ass if you did either. So even though these people were Christians, they realized that in their new country they wanted nothing to do with a government that could kill you for your religious beliefs. The ONLY way you could discount this is if you truly believe that all Christians of the time wanted a theocracy. 

There were of course non Christians who were instrumental in the forming of this nation, but 92% of the signers of the DoI were in fact members of one Christian church or another. Our laws are Judeo/Christian based. Our government documents and monuments are covered in testimonies to God.  It can't be denied. The men who founded our nation did sound with the idea that we would be a nation of God. Now please notice I am saying a nation of God, I am NOT saying a nation which demands that all of its people worship any one religion, or even at all.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



A nation of God means what? How is a nation founded on a belief? What belief? Who's belief? 
How does one put that in a rifle and shoot it at a red coat?
God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Laws founded this nation.
Not men and their various religous beliefs.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Senseless rambling from gadawg.

Thanks.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Psst...do you think the founding fathers were lying when they said they founded the nation on Christian principle, Gadawg?

Of course you do! Those damned liars, they didn't know what they were doing! After all, gadawg, bod & liewinger weren't around to tell them what they were REALLY doing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

One only has to look at the writings of many of the Torries that fled to Canada.
"The Colonial terrorists are using unChristian tactics in their attacking of the columns. They are afraid to come out and fight and hide behind trees in ambush".
And we were smart in doing so.
THAT IS FACT, recorded as such and the history of the day.
The entire revolution was SO against most of what the status quo religous beliefs and influences of the day were.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Senseless rambling from gadawg.
> 
> Thanks.



Go ahead a neg rep me a thousand times like you always do Allie.
Everyone knows you have nothing of substance to offer.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Psst...do you think the founding fathers were lying when they said they founded the nation on Christian principle, Gadawg?
> 
> Of course you do! Those damned liars, they didn't know what they were doing! After all, gadawg, bod & liewinger weren't around to tell them what they were REALLY doing.



Were they lying when they stated in the Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of The United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Submitted by John Adams and UNANIMOUSLY passed by the Senate in 1797.
BY THE FOUNDERS.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> One only has to look at the writings of many of the Torries that fled to Canada.
> "The Colonial terrorists are using unChristian tactics in their attacking of the columns. They are afraid to come out and fight and hide behind trees in ambush".
> And we were smart in doing so.
> THAT IS FACT, recorded as such and the history of the day.
> The entire revolution was SO against most of what the status quo religous beliefs and influences of the day were.


 
Why would we look at the writings of that well-known cult, The Torries (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA....btw, you might want to look up the spelling, I think there's an alternate) when we have the words of the people who actually constructed the country?

Moron.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Psst...do you think the founding fathers were lying when they said they founded the nation on Christian principle, Gadawg?
> ...



"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



What treaty is that?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

That's been posted approximately 2.5 billion times.

And that's just in THIS thread.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

So we can't be founded on a principle unless it's in a treaty first?

So the founding fathers were lying? I guess they were unaware of what 'founded' means. They were well known to be ignorami, after all. Not at all knowledgeable about such things.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It's not a treaty, it was in a letter written by J Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28,1813. 

You don't want to play the history game with me.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Sure he does! Because we all know, HISTORY IS RELATIVE! It's completely subjective! It is what we make it!

Let's hear it for revisionist history! Cuz it's the best kind, and means that we don't have to bother with pesky factoids...


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Letters are incorporated into our Government structure?

What about the Treaty of Tripoli...SIGNED by J. Adams, approved unanimously by Congress, a legal document?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Please show me the definition that states that "founded" means letters incorporated into government structure.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Please show me the definition that states that "founded" means letters incorporated into government structure.



Are you saying letters are part of our nation's founding and how we run things here?  Especially when they contradict what the same person may have done officially and legally within our nation's creation and running?

Let me put it this way...I have no doubt that John Adams (a ancestor of mine, btw) was a practicing Christian.  What did he DO to incorporate that Christianity into the foundation of this country and the government he became the 2nd President of?  What are those Christian tenets he made sure became part of our Country's government and actions?


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No, they are not. and neither are treaties you simpleton.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."

Another quote from the man who signed a treaty which allegedly proves that Adams didn't think we were founded on Christian principles. 

Also simpleton would you like me to find other examples of treaties which were couched in niceties that weren't worth more than the paper they were written on?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

The single phrase in the Treaty of Tripoli that she keeps referencing (as it's the only thing that even remotely supports her ridiculous claims) is recognized by all (except retards) as a disclaimer meant to soothe Muslim lunatics, who even then loathed Christians. It was necessary to have a disclaimer in the treaty to keep them from freaking out.

This has been detailed ad nauseum already. Bod just ignored it, of course.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



They most certainly are.   They are legal documents, approved by Congress and signed by the President and become LAW.   



> you simpleton.



  Not only do I win again, but you've gifted me with some delicious Irony to boot.



> "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."



That's very nice...was that suggestion acted upon?  Is it part of our Nation and our heritage now?



> Another quote from the man who signed a treaty which allegedly proves that Adams didn't think we were founded on Christian principles.



You mean the same politican who gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts?



> Also *simpleton* would you like me to find other examples of treaties which were couched in niceties that weren't worth more than the paper they were written on?



Unfortunately, you point out one of the failings of our Country in its history....it lies...it breaks promises...it breaks the law (and yes treaties are law).   Would you classify THAT as a Christian tenet?


Oh....btw:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Other than taking the occasional shot at your stupidity, I am done with you unless and until you address the question I asked you pages ago.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Refresh my memory as to that question.


BTW...I'm glad you realized

letter = private musings

treaty = actual law


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Apparently, when you've got nothing of substance, you are like many others on this thread....you call names.   Pretty much a firm indicator that you really can't back your posts up.

I'm still kind of chuckling over you not knowing that treaties are law.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Yes, but what indicates foundation?

You are asserting that the ONLY foundation of a country is law.

However, that's not true and does not speak to the actual defintion of foundation.


----------



## TheBrain (May 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Other than taking the occasional shot at your stupidity, I am done with you unless and until you address the question I asked you pages ago.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 3, 2011)

Occasional? Bod Stupidity Shots could eat up a lifetime.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> So we can't be founded on a principle unless it's in a treaty first?



No.  Please don't try to make us believe you don't understand the point.



> So the founding fathers were lying?



No more and no less than any other politician.   That's why you get multiple opinions on religion and government coming from the same guy.   Jefferson saying he's a Christian...Jefferson saying he's not a Christian.  Adams being for Christianity in government...Adams signing a treaty that says we are not a Christian nation.   It's pandering, it's politics, it's business much the way it is now.



> I guess they were unaware of what 'founded' means. They were well known to be ignorami, after all. Not at all knowledgeable about such things.




Now you are simply being silly.


----------



## bodecea (May 3, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I assume this is the question you refer to....

Pretty much all treaties still in affect.   (except those with native american tribes...we've got a bad record with them)

Trade treaties, peace treaties....a good example is The Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago...also the Webster-Ashburton Treaty...the Treaty of Ghent....of course, the Treaty of Paris....very important for us to say the least.

Here's a good list:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

Notice some of the things covered that are part of our law and official policies today.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > So we can't be founded on a principle unless it's in a treaty first?
> ...


 
Not at all.

You have claimed over and over that the country can't be founded upon Christianity because God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. You refuse to speak to the MULTITUDE of quotes that have been linked that show that the founding fathers, multiple presidents, and the Supreme Court have stated and ruled that the country was based upon Christian principle.

So either you think all those people are lying, or they didn't know what "found" means.

If you don't, then you have to accept that the country was, indeed, founded upon Christian principle.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 And other legal documents for running our government.   I have ALSO asked you repeatedly for any evidence to the contrary...anything indicative within our Government's founding documents that show we are to be run based on Christian tenets.   So far, you've given me letters (not governing documents), evasions (not governing documents), insults (not governing documents), negs (not governing documents), and whining about how I ruin your thread (not governing documents)



> You refuse to speak to the MULTITUDE of quotes that have been linked that show that the founding fathers, multiple presidents, and the Supreme Court have stated



PRIVATELY as in letters (not legal documentation), with frequent CONTRADICTORY documentation



> and ruled that the country was based upon Christian principle.



Ah...rulings....where are those rulings.   Give us some.  Rulings are legal documentation....especial rulings made by federal courts.



> So either you think all those people are lying, or they didn't know what "found" means.



I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a Christian principle is...you sure can't list any.



> If you don't, then you have to accept that the country was, indeed, founded upon *Christian principle*.



Some being......?


Here....let's get something settled....do you believe that if a leader/leaders writes letters or speaks about their christian faith and that they believe they are doing christian work....that means their country is based on christian tenets?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

They didn't state they thought they were doing "Christian work" you moron. They said they founded the country on Christianity.

You continue to be dishonest.

Likewise, I don't need to quote any legal documents that refer God because I have never made the claim that *found* is a legal term, or must be supported by legal documents. It's not, it doesn't. That's your assertion, and it's incorrect, so you are being dishonest when you seek to compel me to provide evidence that there are references to God in our laws (though there probably are) and if there are no references, our country can't be founded upon Christianity. That's hogwash. I will not provide such evidence because it's not needed and proves nothing. I've provided reams of evidence of our founding fathers stating they founded the country on Christianity, and supporting quotes from the Supreme Court and later presidents stating the same thing. 

Since the founding fathers, the Supreme Court, and various presidents have all concurred and stated that the country is firmly rooted in Christianity, there is no need for me to list the tenets. It doesn't matter what they are. The fact is, the people who created the country agree, as do all scholars, that the country was founded on Christian tenets. It doesn't matter what they are (though they have been listed, by multiple posters); you wouldn't recognize them as Christian anyway. More dishonesty on your part.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



"The Supreme Court ruled that the country was based upon Christian principle"
The Supreme Court rules ON THE LAW, NOT RELIGION.
Show us a ruling based on religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

Just the other day I was in Chickamauga, Ga. There are hundreds of Confederate monuments there with quotes from many a politician on how great the sacrifice was and how God was on the side of the protectors of the South from the invading armies.
There are hundreds of these all over the south. 
Accordingly, the South was founded on Christian Confederate principle.


----------



## editec (May 4, 2011)

gadawg73 said:


> just the other day i was in chickamauga, ga. There are hundreds of confederate monuments there with quotes from many a politician on how great the sacrifice was and how god was on the side of the protectors of the south from the invading armies.
> There are hundreds of these all over the south.
> Accordingly, the south was founded on christian confederate principle.


 

_ouch!_


----------



## sparky (May 4, 2011)

so, are athiests, muslims, jews, agnostics, and secularists _bad_ Americans here?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> They didn't state they thought they were doing "Christian work" you moron. They said they founded the country on Christianity.
> 
> You continue to be dishonest.
> 
> Likewise, I don't need to quote any legal documents that refer God because I have never made the claim that *found* is a legal term, or must be supported by legal documents. It's not, it doesn't. That's your assertion, and it's incorrect, so you are being dishonest when you seek to compel me to provide evidence that there are references to God in our laws (though there probably are) and if there are no references, our country can't be founded upon Christianity. That's hogwash. I will not provide such evidence because it's not needed and proves nothing. *I've provided reams of evidence of our founding fathers stating they founded the country on Christianity, *



OK, so if leaders/founders of a country write/say they are founding their country on Christianity, that settles it?   They are doing so and it IS so?




> and supporting quotes from the Supreme Court



If you gave supporting quotes from the Supreme Court I honestly missed them...could you repeat them please?



> and later presidents stating the same thing.


  This goes back to what I asked before...if they say it, that means it IS so?



> Since the founding fathers, the Supreme Court, and various presidents have all *concurred and stated that the country is firmly rooted in Christianity, there is no need for me to list the tenets. *It doesn't matter what they are. The fact is, the people who created the country agree, as do all scholars, that the country was founded on Christian tenets. It doesn't matter what they are (though they have been listed, by multiple posters); you wouldn't recognize them as Christian anyway. More dishonesty on your part.



So, you are presenting the argument that these people saying it is so...that is good enough for you, it IS so?   I just want to be perfectly clear on your argument here.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 

I already did, fuckchops.

What is with the fad of pretending that evidence that has been provided doesn't exist, and asking for it over, and over, and over, and over again?

Again, pure trolling. Read the thread.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



No you haven't.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

She said troll.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't state they thought they were doing "Christian work" you moron. They said they founded the country on Christianity.
> ...


 
Yes, of course that settles it. When MULTIPLE of the founding fathers (note the term "founding") state that they have developed the structure of the country according to Christian principles, then we can take them at their word. They are the source, they are the ones who know what precepts they were following. Second guessing them is idiotic...UNLESS YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE LIARS and had some motive to lie about it. In which case you also have to prove that the courts lied and presidents Lincoln and Obama lied.

What other proof do you think there is? You want to completely disregard teh FOUNDING fathers' claims that they were applying Christian principle when they considered this new country?

There is no better evidence. In fact, there's no other evidence, period. 

And this is more evidence of your own dishonesty..or stupidity. This is NOT relative. This is history. History isn't subject to change, and it isn't subject to your own whims. There is no evidence that will trump the multiple statements by the founding fathers, unless you have some evidence of a grand conspiracy, entered into by all of the founding fathers and everyone else who has agreed that they built the foundation of the country upon Christian principle.

A principle is NOT necessarily a written stricture or a law. People adhere to principles and develop things based upon their value systems all the time, despite the fact they haven't developed a contract that lays out the values by name. The whole concept that they didn't do it (despite their claims) if it's not in the laws is incorrect. It's so incorrect it isn't even debatable, and you look foolish for maintaining for more than 100 pages that it is. Which is why I call you dishonest for doing it....flying in the face of the evidence that is not questioned by any historian, scholar, or even politician, without establishing WHY or HOW they are ALL being dishonest is intellectually dishonest.

It's like saying "The sky is green" because there is no "scientific" evidence that it is blue. We don't need scientific evidence to prove the sky is blue...everybody can see it, everybody agrees...it is blue. It doesn't cease to be blue because there's no study on its blueness.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

James Madison, the Father of The United States Constitution:
"What have been Christianity's fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both-superstition, bigotry and persecution"
Sure, Allie, Madision founded this nation on Christian principles.
Jefferson letter to Adams:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter".
Yeah, right, Jefferson sure admired Christianity. 
Want more?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

Theses two idiots cannot refute the facts so what do they do? Present strawman arguments over and over and over again. If either of them would just look at the facts. 

Declaration of Independance 

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation 

Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic 
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist 
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist 
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist 
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist 
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist 
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist 
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist 
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist 
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist 
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist 
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian 
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian 
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian 
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian 
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian 
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian 
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian 
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian 
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian 
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian 
George Read Delaware Episcopalian 
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian 
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian 
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian 
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian 
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian 
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian 
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian 
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian 
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian 
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian 
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian 
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian 
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian 
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian 
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) 
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) 
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist 
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian 
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian 
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian 
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian 
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian 
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian 
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian 
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian 
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian 
William Floyd New York Presbyterian 
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian 
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian 
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian 
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian 

The Constitution 

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation 

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic 
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic 
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist 
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist 
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist 
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist 
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian 
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian 
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian 
George Read Delaware Episcopalian 
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian 
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian 
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian 
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian 
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian 
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian 
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian 
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) 
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian 
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran 
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist 
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran 
William Few Georgia Methodist 
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist 
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian 
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian 
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian 
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian 
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian 
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian 
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian 
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian 
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



No.   No you did not.   You've pulled this before...making an assertion and when asked to prove it...you evade by saying you already did....We're not buying that crap anymore, Allie.

Show us the evidence.   Don't lie and evade for once.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Shit, Bod has spent the duration of this thread either denying that the Declaration is a founding document, or ignoring it completely.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
You don't remember the links and the quotes that had the supreme court ruling?

You're a liar. Find it yourself.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Theses two idiots cannot refute the facts so what do they do? Present strawman arguments over and over and over again. If either of them would just look at the facts.
> 
> Declaration of Independance
> 
> ...



And?   Has anyone here disputed that the Founders themselves for the most part were Christians?   Does being a Christian, saying one is a Christian, going regularly to a Christian church mean these guys constructed our secular government upon Christian principles?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

From yet another site than the ones I originally sourced:

"The _facts_ of _Holy Trinity_ concerned the application of an Act of Congress titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States, its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church, a church located in the city of New York, contracted with a minister in England to perform services as rector and pastor at its church. At issue in the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States." 

"
Justice Brewer then writes in the opinion that "beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people." Several pages later, after presenting a religious history of America, he follows up with the statement: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Barton splices together these two quotes and cites _Holy Trinity_ as establishing America as a Christian Nation. "

America a Christian Nation?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You're evading and running away again as you do when pinned down on one of your assertions.   We're not buying it Allie.   You're lying again.   Put up the links/posts....stop running, it's pathetic.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Fucktard, I did. Again. You're a lying sack of shit.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

[SIZE=-1]"In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is *no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders *of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'[/SIZE] 

Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> From yet another site than the ones I originally sourced:
> 
> "The _facts_ of _Holy Trinity_ concerned the application of an Act of Congress titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States, its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church, a church located in the city of New York, contracted with a minister in England to perform services as rector and pastor at its church. At issue in the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States."
> 
> ...



Did you see this analysis at the beginning, Allie?



> David Barton (The Myth of Separation, pp. 47-51) and others of the Religious right claim that the Supreme Court determined that the United States was a Christian nation in the 1892 case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892). *Unfortunately, their thesis and the analysis of the case that accompanies it amounts to little more than a manipulation of the language of the opinion to distort the actual meaning of the case,* its relevant facts and its stated rule of law



   You need to read that entire link you provided....you pwn'd yourself.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> [SIZE=-1]"In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is *no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders *of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'[/SIZE]
> 
> Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?



What law did they incorporate that comment in?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Fucktard, I did. Again. You're a lying sack of shit.



If you mean the link that refuted your own assertions....ok.   It was pretty funny seeing you put up info that pwned yourself.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

"
1891 &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a &#8220;Christian Nation.&#8221;
&#8220;Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian &#8230; this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation &#8230; we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth &#8230; this is a Christian nation.&#8221; (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)"
Was America founded as a Christian&#160;nation? &#8212; The Forerunner


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't state they thought they were doing "Christian work" you moron. They said they founded the country on Christianity.
> ...



OK, all laughter aside.   Let's get back to this....Allie, it seems to me that you've been arguing all along that because our Founders say and write that they are Christians and that this is a Christian nation, that makes it so.....do I have that right?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > From yet another site than the ones I originally sourced:
> ...


 
No, I didn't. I said the supreme court ruled we are a Christian nation, and it did. The opinion tacked onto the end is not the evidence. The ruling is.

You are lying when you state that I didn't post this before, btw.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "
> 1891  The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a Christian Nation.
> Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian  this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation  we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth  this is a Christian nation. (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)"
> Was America founded as a Christian*nation?  The Forerunner



That's the same case, Allie...and you are providing a short snippet from a pro-Christian Nation blog full of little snippets with no background info.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

A ruling doesn't need background info. The ruling is legit, as you know, as are the text quotes from the ruling.

The subsequent opinions about it are meaningless, of course, as it proves what I said (and you contested) - the supreme court stated that we are a Christian nation.

My original links when I initially quoted the SC on this matter (which you lied about when you said I didn't) provided a different source. 

But continue to lie. I expect nothing else from you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Theses two idiots cannot refute the facts so what do they do? Present strawman arguments over and over and over again. If either of them would just look at the facts.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...






			
				AllieBaba said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -300 reputation points from AllieBaba.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...




wrong again allie....your other link on the same Supreme court case says that statement is NOT part of the ruling.   Do you read your own links before posting them?   That's why I said you pwn'd yourself....and you've done it once again.

Now I'll go adjust my scoreboard for the day.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So, the secular government was based on Christian principles just because one of its founders may have said something like this.



> The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life"



or even founders/politicians saying something like this?



> My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.



and this:



> And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

The Founding Fathers principles were founded on Biblical teachings based on Christianity.
In order to have freedom from government each person must
Think for yourself
Govern yourself
Be responsible
Be accountable for your actions and words
Take care of your neighbors
Have values and character.
All of this is from the bible
It goes across the board whether you are Christian,Jew,Muslim or Atheist.
These principles are what brings the melting pot together as Americans.
If you don't have the majority of Americans having these principles then Government must take control, and there goes your freedom.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The Founding Fathers principles were founded on Biblical teachings based on Christianity.
> In order to have freedom from government each person must
> Think for yourself
> Govern yourself
> ...



These are Christian values?   Not generic values?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



AllieBaba...do you agree with Lonestar_Logic?


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers principles were founded on Biblical teachings based on Christianity.
> ...



Yes they are Christian values


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Just the other day I was in Chickamauga, Ga. There are hundreds of Confederate monuments there with quotes from many a politician on how great the sacrifice was and how God was on the side of the protectors of the South from the invading armies.
> There are hundreds of these all over the south.
> Accordingly, the South was founded on Christian Confederate principle.



I completely abhor the idea of slavery, but the Confederacy did extol many virtues which one would associate with Christianity.

I guess we could have a separate argument about that, but the fact remains that anything that involves humans is going to contain mistakes. Including the Confederacy; and no I am not a the South will rise again guy. They were in the wrong for trying to break away.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 


We know exactly what they said. They said, exactly, that they founded the nation on Christian principle.

No need to rephrase, misquote, or pretend. They said it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


 
And they are the values that the FF referenced. They didn't reference some other ideology's similar tenets...they referenced the principles in the bible. They told us so. I guess maybe you think the world is so stupid as to buy your lame "well if Hindus practice these things then they aren't Christian tenets". 

Not true..if Hindus have a similar value system, it just means they are both Hindu AND Christian values.

But it doesn't change the fact that when our founding fathers said they were referencing the bible they were, in fact, referencing the bible. If they said they were applying Christian values, they were, in fact, applying Christian values. Not Hindu values, and just *saying* they were Christian.


----------



## editec (May 4, 2011)

Christian "principles" do not lead to a SECULAR state.

Which we clearly, very clearly, have.

Silly debate this.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Of course they do, and have. 

Are you denying that the Declaration is a founding document? Because the historians will argue with you over that.

They will also argue with you over whether or not the country was based on Christian tenets. You fringe retards are making an argument that is laughable, and isn't supported by anybody of any understanding.


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The Founding Fathers principles were founded on Biblical teachings based on Christianity.
> In order to have freedom from government each person must
> Think for yourself
> Govern yourself
> ...



Guess what the 1st congress did.
They had Bibles printed up and had them distributed to all of our schools we had at the time in order to teach the above mentioned principles.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

No way! That's not possible! Because we're a SECULAR government, therefore none of that stuff REALLY happened, and the founding fathers were lying!

And oh, btw...the Declaration isn't a founding document and has nothing to do with the structure or the foundation of this country.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

PS...as I have pointed out repeatedly, whether or not a country is founded on Christian principle, and whether or not it's a theocracy, are two completely different things.

The people who can't get their brains around that need to review their concept of either our government, the concept of foundation, and possibly the bible, as well. Because you have formed this weird idea based on fallacy.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Can only christians have those values?

Seems to me people of all backgrounds and religions and non-religions can also have those principles, which would seem like it's silly to attribute those values to one particular religion.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

That's beside the point.

The debate is whether or not the country was founded on Christian values. Not whether or not other religions, cultures, whatever, also embrace those values.

Of course other people embrace the same values, and they don't attritbute them to Christianity. But our founding fathers did.

Nobody is saying that EVERYBODY who has the same value system is Christian, either.

All that's being said is that our country was founded upon CHRISTIAN principle.

And it was.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




So, they can only be found in those who believe in Christianity and before Christianity they did not exist?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

You know, I just addressed that, moron. Do you do that on purpose? Ask questions that have JUST BEEN ANSWERED?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Those are not rephrases, those are not misquotes, those are not pretentions...they are real quotes...and yes they said them....

This professed Christian said them:

Adolf Hitler - Roman Catholic

and other founders of his nation
Hermann Goering - Lutheran
Heinrich Himmler - Roman Catholic
Martin Bormann - Lutheran
Joseph Goebbels - Roman Catholic


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's beside the point.
> 
> The debate is whether or not the country was founded on Christian values. Not whether or not other religions, cultures, whatever, also embrace those values.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's a yes or no answer.

There were christians involved who attribute the principles they had to founding the country to being christian in nature.

There were non-christians involved who certainly wouldn't attribute the principles they had in founding the country to being christian in nature.

Not a black and white answer, not 100% either way yay or nay.


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

Yes Way !
The meaning of separation of Church and state meant government or sates could not have one religion sanctioned by them. No state could say they were promoting or supporting one religion over any other.
This is why people came here for freedom to worship as they pleased. The courts are dead wrong on this ruling, they based it on one writing and not all of the other facts.
And guess what else, Government should not have a department of education. Ever since the department was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter our schools education has gone downhill.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's beside the point.
> 
> The debate is whether or not the country was founded on Christian values. Not whether or not other religions, cultures, whatever, also embrace those values.
> 
> ...



So they are NOT Christian values...they are simply "Good Human Being" values.   There is NOTHING uniquely Christian, exclusively Christian about those values after all, is there?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I don't recall any of our founding fathers making those statements. PLease direct the quote to the person it belongs to, for futher examination.

My guess is you're building yet another strawman.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Yes Way !
> The meaning of separation of Church and state meant government or sates could not have one religion sanctioned by them. No state could say they were promoting or supporting one religion over any other.
> This is why people came here for freedom to worship as they pleased. The courts are dead wrong on this ruling, they based it on one writing and not all of the other facts.
> *And guess what else, Government should not have a department of education. Ever since the department was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter our schools education has gone downhill*.



Off topic, but what the heck....Why shouldn't the government have a dept of education?


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What part of it goes across the board to all don't you get?


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Way !
> ...



Education of our children has gone downhill
Perfect example - you can't read.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Done...read up a few posts.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Yeah, well given your propensity to lie, I'll just disregard them.

They're irrelevant (completely and totally), anyway and do nothing to prove the FF were either intentionally lying or just ignorant when they said they were founding the country on Christian values.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Wait...are you saying that education was fine until Carter and THEN it went downhill?   
(BTW, I can read just fine....I was waiting for you to confirm what you did....:lol)


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

And again....whether or not the country was formed on Christian principle has absolutely nothing to do with the faith of the founding fathers. I guess that's the point you were making with your (again irrelevant) list of nasty individuals who you say were Christians. Or specifically RC, or whatever.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

And what's with the constant requests that people rephrase and restate, over and over?

I know what it is...it's your feeble attempt to get people to say what you want them to say, as opposed to what they really said and meant.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Wait, wait wait.

Those are indeed exact quotes from Hitler and those people were of those religions listed.....just like you presented to me.

Why is CHristianity the basis of one nation because of quotes and religions of the founders and NOT the basis of another nation becaues of quotes and religions of the founders?


Explain, please.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's what I thought. Just another strawman argument.

I don't think you're capable of honesty. You certainly don't possess any amount of integrity.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Because Hitler and the others didn't SAY they were founding a country on Christian principles.

It's really pretty simple.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

Just a few comments from our Founding Fathers--the intent of each statement stands alone out of context here or when placed within its full context:

*John Adams *
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." 
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson. 

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever." 
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776. 

*Thomas Jefferson *
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

*John Hancock *
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence 

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us." 
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229

*James Monroe *
5th U.S. President 

"When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good." 
--Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818. 

*Benjamin Rush*
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution 

"I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker. 
If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into all the world would have been unnecessary. The perfect morality of the gospel rests upon the doctrine which, though often controverted has never been refuted: I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God." 
--Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798. 

*John Witherspoon *
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University 

"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts. 

What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind." 
--Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776. 

BOTTOM LINE:  America was not founded as a Christian nation for as devout as these men were, they knew the dangers should any Church by any name become a ruling influence and also the danger to our rights should government have power over human thought and beliefs.  But their beliefs and convictions regarding unalienable rights and the role of moral virtue in protecting those came right out of their Christian playbooks.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



The point i don't get the labeling them as christian, when people had those principles before christianity came about, people of other religions have had those principles, people without religion have had them, etc etc.

So the principles weren't originally christian, and aren't solely christian now, yet to you they're christian principles. That's the part I don't get.

Why the christian label?  Why not just call them principles?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

They are Christian principles because that's the way the founding fathers referenced them. They were applying CHRISTIAN principles to the foundation of the nation.

If you want to argue about whether or not Christian values are actually Christian values, that's an entirely different subject and has no bearing on whether or not the founding fathers were referencing the Bible and Christian principle when they formed the country. They said they were. I believe them.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Just a few comments from our Founding Fathers--the intent of each statement stands alone out of context here or when placed within its full context:
> 
> *John Adams *
> 2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
> ...


 
The US has a Christian foundation but is NOT a theocracy. Exactly.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



No it isn't a strawman....it is another example using the criteria for a Christian Country that YOU set up, Lonestar.   

Now, explain...why is one country considered founded on Christian tenets and the other one isn't?

American 1770s 

1.  Founders professed Christian...check

2.   Founders give speeches and write letters saying they are using Christian tenets..check

= Country founded on Christian tenets.

Germany 1930s

1.  Founders professed Christian...check

2.  Founders give speeches and write letters saying they are using Christian tenets...check

= ???  (Country founded on Christian tenets)    

How can you not agree?  You are the one who set the standard, not I.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Just a few comments from our Founding Fathers--the intent of each statement stands alone out of context here or when placed within its full context:
> ...




That I agree with...tho the Puritans sure tried.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

The fact that some Christian beliefs and teachings are not exclusive to Christianity makes them no less Christian.  Yes the Founding Fathers may not have been unique in all their beliefs, but they almost to a man attributed their beliefs to their Christian faith.  And it was out of that faith and those beliefs that created a nation absolutely unique among nations--the first to recognize and protect God given unalienable rights of the people.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> They are Christian principles because that's the way the founding fathers referenced them. They were applying CHRISTIAN principles to the foundation of the nation.
> 
> If you want to argue about whether or not Christian values are actually Christian values, that's an entirely different subject and has no bearing on whether or not the founding fathers were referencing the Bible and Christian principle when they formed the country. They said they were. I believe them.



Allie that's a blanket statement, you know not every founding father said this nation was founded on christian values.

You can argue some did, you can even argue a majority did, all?  Of course not.

To some of them they were christian values, to others they weren't, my answer is the most boring but I think it's also the most accurate.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The fact that some Christian beliefs and teachings are not exclusive to Christianity makes them no less Christian.  Yes the Founding Fathers may not have been unique in all their beliefs, but they almost to a man attributed their beliefs to their Christian faith.  And it was out of that faith and those beliefs that created a nation absolutely unique among nations--the first to recognize and protect God given unalienable rights of the people.



Also makes them no less values to people who aren't christian, which not every founding father was.

Hence why I don't think it's a blanket yes or no answer.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes, the Puritans and some other groups did create their own little theocracies within the colonies and the new states.  And the Founders, while they would not allow this in the federal government saw it as an unalienable right for the Puritans and other groups to form the society they wished to have.  That is a concept we need to relearn.

History has worked out to show that with power of human freedom and unalienable rights protected for the first time in human history, every one of those little theocracies eventually peacefully dissolved and went away.   By choice, not by decree.

Freedom won out over theocracy and no national theocracy has ever even threatened to form.  Even strict Mormonism in Utah has given away to more tolerance and inclusiveness.  Whenever unalienable rights are understood, recognized, and protected, humankind generally manages to arrive at a better place.  We only get ourselves in trouble when we violate those rights in favor of different selfish and/or altruistic motives.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

editec said:


> Christian "principles" do not lead to a SECULAR state.
> 
> Which we clearly, very clearly, have.
> 
> Silly debate this.



So you claim that all Christians want a theocracy? What a joke.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Actually they saw it as a horribly failed experiment and structured the federal government so it could NOT happen again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It is a strawman because we aren't discussing any other nations founding, just this one.

I could care less what principles Germany applied in it's founding. I do know that Hitler was not Germany's founding father.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sorry, but it continued some time after the Constitution was ratified and the federal government did nothing to interfere with it.  If I'm remembering the history right, I believe the last Puritan theocracy dissolved in 1799.


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

Do you actually think that Hitlers regime was based on;
Think for yourself - not - you were killed if you did not go along with the program.
Govern yourself - not - complete government control - totalitarianism
Take care of your neighbors - not - turn in your neighbors.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that some Christian beliefs and teachings are not exclusive to Christianity makes them no less Christian. Yes the Founding Fathers may not have been unique in all their beliefs, but they almost to a man attributed their beliefs to their Christian faith. And it was out of that faith and those beliefs that created a nation absolutely unique among nations--the first to recognize and protect God given unalienable rights of the people.
> ...


 
You're the one trying to make it a blanket statement. Because the premise is very limited...the US was founded upon Christian principle based upon the FF statements and certain foundation docs.

This is not to say that everybody who embraces those  tenets is Christian. It isn't to say that all the FF were Christian. It isn't to say that the country is a theocracy, it isn't. 

But this particular country, as developed by our founding fathers, was very deliberately founded on Christian principle. They decided to create a new country, they decided there would be no state religion, but they recognized (and said they recognized) that freedom and liberty come from God only, and as such are sacrosanct. That is the foundation of this country, and that is a Christian precept.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



In fairness to Dr. Drock, I don't think he is making blanket statements.  He very correctly pointed out that Christians cannot claim exclusive ownership of some of the tenets and convictions that went into the Declaration of Independence that in turn provided the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution.  He is not dismissing a Christian influence but only arguing that all are not uniquely Christian concepts.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



But YOU gave me the criteria as to why this nation is a nation based on Christian tenets.   Why wouldn't that criteria fit in all cases?   What is the difference between America and Germany if YOUR criteria is met in both cases?



> I could care less what principles Germany applied in it's founding. I do know that Hitler was not Germany's founding father.



Not talking about caring, simply talking about consistency....and Hitler WAS the founder of the Third Reich which they considered more than Germany, just like the Founders thought of the U.S. as more than the original 13 colonies.


----------



## Spoonman (May 4, 2011)

yet they wrote in the constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

They had the forsite to know government should be allowed no say in religion because they would do what governments had done in their previous experience.  limit religion and try to control it.   They gave religion the power to rise above government and not be influenced by government.   Why would they give so much power to religion if they opposed it?    But in the first amendment they took the time and effort to protect it.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



I got that from what he said too.

How can something be claimed as a Christian tenet when others besides Christians have those tenets and many of those tenets precede Christianity?   Christianity does not, nor has it ever has a patent on goodness and fairness and kindness.   It is chauvinism to think so.   (It's similar to the bruhaha over saying Happy Holidays at Christmas time...and those who get all huffy and yell that Christmas is a Christian holiday and only a Christian holiday and how DARE people be inclusive with non-christians in their greetings....ok, I know that was off topic, but it DID come to mind as similar)


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> yet they wrote in the constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
> 
> They had the forsite to know government should be allowed no say in religion because they would do what governments had done in their previous experience.  limit religion and try to control it.   They gave religion the power to rise above government and not be influenced by government.   Why would they give so much power to religion if they opposed it?    But in the first amendment they took the time and effort to protect it.



Exactly...to protect religion FROM government.   (Which is an obvious point...religion has a lot more to fear from government than government has to fear from religion)


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



No one has or is declaring those tenets are exclusively Christian. His point is simply a red herring.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually they say it comes from our creator whoever that may be perceived to be...and that most certainly is NOT a christian precept.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Hitler was not the founder of Germany. Period.


----------



## Spoonman (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > yet they wrote in the constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
> ...



don't go agreeing with me.  i like it better when we argue


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


IF they are not exclusively Christian, why are they labeled as Christian?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Because dumbass they are Christian tenets. They may be other religions tenets also but we know that the FF's were not of any other religion. They were for the most part Christians. 


Damn, you are one stupid troll!


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Well it may be or it may not be, but my point is that even if it was thrown in there as a red herring, it is still accurate.  I don't know that he does, but some here absolutely do want to downplay a Christian influence in the foundations of our nation and what brought it about.

We can generously and accurately concede that Christians cannot claim credit for all virtue.  We can also be accurate when we insist that the concept of God given unalienable rights that provides the anchoring cornerstone for the USA did come from the Christian faith and perspective of the Founding Fathers.

So, the United States of America was not founded upon Christianity or as a Christian nation.  It was founded out of the Christian concept of unalienable rights as understood by the Founding Fathers.  No other nation in the history of the world had recognized such rights or based it government on that principle.

Those same Founding Fathers also knew in their heart that if the new nation was not predominantly a nation committed to Christian concepts of morality and virtue, the great experiment would fail.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Hmmm....so they are not really ONLY Christian tenets.   They are not even tenets invented by Christians...but because the founders claim christianity as their religion (most of them)...it's christian tenets.


Sorry, that's chauvanistic and just as untrue as if I were to say that our FFs were partiers for the most part that our country was based on partying tenets?      Or if (as was true) our country's FFs were for the most part farmers, our country was based on farming tenets?

We are talking people that RAN AWAY from religious tyranny of the State...you know.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Why are they not called Religious tenets?   Why are they not called Equality tenets?   Why are they not called Enlightenment tenets?

They are NOT exclusively Christian.

NOT all Christian principles are found in them.

Unless you are chauvanistic, Christianity DOES NOT OWN these tenets that country was based on.

If Christianity did....why didn't Christian England have the same tenets?   Why didn't Christian Mexico have the same tenets?   Why didn't Christian France have the same tenets?


----------



## Spoonman (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



because they speak different languages.  duh!


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Does that change anything about the Criteria that YOU set up that you somehow want applied to America as evidence but you don't want applied to Germany as evidence?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You really should learn your history.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes it does. The discussion is about THIS nation.  Not how other nations were founded and on what principles.

Wise up!

FWIW You have to go back to 100 AD or earlier in order to see how Germany was founded.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
BECAUSE THE FF SAID THEY WERE USING CHRISTIAN TENETS.

That's why they're labeled as Christian. The FF said, en masse, we believe in God, we believe man has certain rights that come from God and none other, and we will have a nation that protects those rights...including the rights of those who don't believe in God, or people who aren't Christian.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
She wants to argue everything...except the premise itself.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



At the time England, as well as most of the rest of Europe and the near east, had  religious entities in power that did not practice Christian tenets but rather were more totalitarian political.  That is why the Puritans, among others, wanted out of there and came here.

The tenets in question are Christian tenets because they were pulled from the Christian faith as believed by Christians who also happened to be our Founding Fathers.  Just because others also hold them makes them no less Christian.   It is the same sort of thing that makes Christmas and Easter Christian festivals.  The fact that non-Christians also celebrate or acknowledge components of them does not change the fact that they arose out of the Christian faith and were originally uniquely Christian festivals.

No other faith had come up with the concept of unalienable rights nor proposed them as the principle of good government.  That came out of Christian beliefs practiced by Christians and Christianity at least deserve acknowledgement if not credit for that.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



So they're not exclusively christian tenets, and not all the founding fathers were christian, but you can undeniably say for certain that you know the country was founded purely on what the founding fathers viewed as christian principles?

Very interesting to say the least.


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

What our 1st congress did;

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as &#8220;The Bible Congress.&#8221; Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the &#8220;Bible of the American Revolution&#8221; and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles.

So the Founding Father's were Christian in their belief's


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Having devoted a great deal of time studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and doing a college thesis on their religious views, I can say with a great deal of confidence that I can undeniably say pretty much for certain what THEY said was the basis for the republic they gave us.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

peach174 said:


> What our 1st congress did;
> 
> On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as The Bible Congress. Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the Bible of the American Revolution and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles.
> 
> So the Founding Father's were Christian in their belief's



I wonder why they only did it once.   Do you think you can tell us?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




And yet, using the EXACT SAME criteria, he cannot say the same thing about the Third Reich.   You don't think he's being a wee bit inconsistent, do you?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Ah, but they would totally disagree with you on that....and the Puritans were even worse in some respects...they HANGED Quakers.   They kicked out and imprisoned anyone who did not follow the accepted Church lines.   People HAD to go to church for hours on end with enforcers making sure they stayed awake.   Laws forbid dancing, drinking, bright clothes, holiday celebrations, PDA and if you didn't fit the mold...you might be hanged as a witch.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



If all the founding fathers were christians I'd understand but they weren't, I wouldn't be able to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that people who aren't christian would label some of their principles as being christian in nature.

Again some of the founding fathers did what they did based on principles they'd deem as christian, others weren't and wouldn't deem them as christian.  I dunno why that's offensive to some people to say that non-christians wouldn't label their principles as christian.  Seems pretty basic to me.


----------



## peach174 (May 4, 2011)

They were very much so Christians but believed that all religions should have freedom in this nation and also included Atheists. Freedom to worship or not to worship , but should have basic religion to have a free and civil society.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.[69]
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, 17 Sept. 1796.

The great pillars of all government and of social life . . . [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.[70]
PATRICK HENRY

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.[71]
JOSEPH STORY, U S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE; FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.[72]
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

[T]he Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth. [and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.[73]
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

[T]he Christian religion -- its general principles -- must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.[74]
DANIEL WEBSTER

True religion always enlarges the heart and strengthens the social tie.[75]
JOHN WITHERSPOON

Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.[76]
JAMES MADISON

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world.[77]
BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles.... and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.[78]
NOAH WEBSTER

[N]ational prosperity can neither be attained nor preserved without the favor of Providence.[79]
JOHN JAY, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Again. It has nothing to do with their religion. It has to do with what they SAID they were founding the nation on.

I don't know what non-Christian ff you're talking about, but pretty much all of them said at one time or another, "We are building a country upon Christian principle, but we are not building a theocracy". The quotes are there, carefully preserved and protected in climate-controlled storage, in the history books, cited by presidents, acknowledged by all historians.

It is pretty basic. It's not offensive to say the non-Christians wouldn't label their principles as Christian...it's just a lie. The non-Christians DID label the founding principles as Christian...though I have no idea who these famed "non-Christians" are. I just know that pretty much all the founding fathers said and wrote, repeatedly, that they were building a nation on Christian principle, and that without that principle, the government would not function properly.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

The founding fathers left us reams of writings, diaries, letters, and notations from which they give us a very clear look into their spiritual underpinnings and, for most, how that tied in with their views on government and governing.

Non-Christians really REALLY seem to want to believe that the Founding Fathers were mostly diests or non-Christian or not men of strong faith.  The record would indicate otherwise, however.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes, if you read what the founding fathers have said, which has been quoted many times in this thread, it is undeniable.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



For the first time you appear either unschooled in American history or disingenuous.  The Founding Fathers not only agreed with my opinion about that--they wrote it.  The Puritans did not found the federal government and had no say in the wording of the Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect both the authoritarian rigidity of the Puritans as well as people like you who rejected all of it.   And neither of you would have any say over what was appropriate or permissable for the other to believe.

Edit:  And if you are school in European and near east history, you know that what I am saying is correct.  The religious climate became so intolerable that it made the Reformation and Renaissance possible, both of which contributed to the courage and determination to start a new life in the new world.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 4, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Which of the founding fathers did not believe in God?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

So far, from gadawg and Bod, I have learned:

1. There is a religious cult called The Torries that knows more about the motives of the FF than anyone else. The Torries are apparently a secret cult, and the only person who knows any of the specifics about them is Gadawg.

2. The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document and does not speak to the motivations of the founding fathers, nor does it establish a foundation for the new nation that was the US.

3. Quakers were downtrodden, persecuted and butchered by the gross by the Puritans. Therefore, the US was not founded on Christian precepts.

4. Furthermore, since Christianity shares some values with other ideologies worldwide, the FF were lying when they said they were founding a nation on Christian tenets.

These are all interesting facts that you will not find in any history book. They are contained solely in the minds of Bod & Gad, and as such are not debatable!


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> What was that Exclusively Christian Principle they build our nation on.....beyond lip service?



That humans are created by God and given unalienable rights that no government nor any group nor any religion nor any person should have the power to deny or set aside. Unalienable rights are from God and are inviolate. The Declaration, the Constitution, and our unique government was based on that single principle that came from their Christian faith. It was the first government in the history of the world to recognize unalienable rights which included the right to govern oneself. And THAT was a uniquely Christian concept.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

The board is malfunctioning people so watch the nesting of the quotes.  Some stuff is being inadvertently assigned to the wrong member.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

So what's the hangup with sharing your vast store of knowledge?


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

PS...my understanding is that the Third Reich is the regime, not the country. 

The country was Germany. 

Not that this has squat to do with the foundation of the US. Just more dishonest trolling by Bod.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> PS...my understanding is that the Third Reich is the regime, not the country.
> 
> The country was Germany.
> 
> Not that this has squat to do with the foundation of the US. Just more dishonest trolling by Bod.



The Third Reich was just another term for Hitler's NAZI party. It had nothing to do with region. In fact there was a sizable Third Reich in South America that has slowly been dying out.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> PS...my understanding is that the Third Reich is the regime, not the country.
> 
> The country was Germany.
> 
> Not that this has squat to do with the foundation of the US. Just more dishonest trolling by Bod.



The Third Reich was more than Germany, it included the countries of Austria and the Sudadenland (sp?) area of Czechslovakia.

It was a new country made up of bits of some old countries.

So...if the leaders are Christian...and they say in writing and in speeches their country is based on Christian tenets....does that make it so?


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > PS...my understanding is that the Third Reich is the regime, not the country.
> ...



The Third Reich was NEVER a country of any sort you dishonest troll.

Also, no NAZI EVER claimed that their party (not country) was founded on Christian tenets.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Lol..more history that I've never in my entire life ever heard before.

Bod is a treasure trove of little known historical data


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

Oh come on guys.  All of us have experienced that terrible moment in the middle of a heated argument in which we realize we are wrong.

The thing is once you're into that kind of hole, the smart thing is to stop digging.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Oh come on guys.  All of us have experienced that terrible moment in the middle of a heated argument in which we realize we are wrong.
> 
> The thing is once you're into that kind of hole, the smart thing is to stop digging.



Sure, simple mistake. And maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like this dude thinks he knows everything, and he called ME out in this very thread accusing me of saying something I NEVER said. So not only would I like an apology for his lying about what I said, I would like to see him acknowledge that he is wrong about the Third Reich.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Won't happen.

She just goes over the same terrain, over and over and over and over. It doesn't matter how many times she's proven to be wrong, or out and out lying....she'll still go back and make the same claims.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Oh come on guys.  All of us have experienced that terrible moment in the middle of a heated argument in which we realize we are wrong.
> ...



Well in fairness to all, as I said the nested quotes in this thread have been malfunctioning.  Look at Post #1688 for instance.  It looks like AllieBaba is saying all that Third Reich stuff when she isn't.  So maybe it was an error in the nested quote and she misread something being yours instead of somebody else?


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Who is she? I am talking about the pirate guy Bode. And no, he in a totally separate thread claimed yet again that I said something I never said. He is a liar, and not very bright.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

I enjoy the fake history lessons, though. They are amusing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

I have to give it to Bod, though. As depressing as I find her stupidity and her committment to lying about, well, everything....she doesn't melt down. Thank goodness. I don't think I could handle yet another poster who has a breakdown every 6 months (I'm thinking of someone...)


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



1.  The Third Reich was most certainly a country...a rather short lived country, but it was a country.

2. And Hitler most certainly DID claim that his mission and the mission of the Third Reich was Christian.

Here:

Hitler's Christianity

There's a great deal in there...some about Hitler thinking his own personal Christian mission was...some that he thought his country's Christian principles were.   He didn't just refer to his Christianity and his newly founded country's Christianity once or twice either.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Great...from a "No Beliefs" site.

That's great, Bod. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

BTW, stating that one is working for God in eradicating Jews is not exactly indicative of applying Christian tenets in the formation of a new country.

Nice try, though. And that site is a great anti-Christian site. Way to go! You're winning!


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

And I am baffled...so are you saying that because Hitler claimed to be working at the behest of God, that the US can't have been founded on Christian tenets?

What a maroon.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You are of course WRONG on both counts. 

A) The Third Reich was NOT a country. The Third Reich was the government of Hitler's that briefly ruled not only Germany but several other countries.

B) A website is of course proof of nothing. You pick a subject and then pick a side and I can show you a website which purports to support that view.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And I am baffled...so are you saying that because Hitler claimed to be working at the behest of God, that the US can't have been founded on Christian tenets?
> 
> What a maroon.



This guy is the master deflector , I'll give him that. He lies, spins, makes things up, changes the subject ANYTHING to get out of facing facts that don't fit his agenda.

It would be sad to go through life so inflexible that you can't even admit to an error.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Your website is a bit suspect and I would question its reliability.   However, Hitler did indeed touch on some Christian themes in the early 20's when he first waded into politics.  Germany was after all a Christian nation comprised of mostly Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and no politician could profess Atheism or anti-Christian sentiments and hope to gain any traction.  Why do you think Obama was so eager to be seen as a Christian and not a Muslim?

But the fact is, Hitler had rejected Roman Catholicism as a youth and there is a lot of speculation on what religious views he actually held, if any.  There is only passing reference to Christianity or religion in Mein Kampf and that is focused on an "Aryan God" that should guide all policy.

Reading Derek Hastings exhaustive anaylsis of Hitler and the Third Reich shows a Hitler who was possibly a believer up to his trial and imprisonment in 1924, but he came under some negative influences at that time.  There is no doubt that Hitler was strongly opposed to Christianity by the time the Third Reich was formed and for its duration.


----------



## Montrovant (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And I am baffled...so are you saying that because Hitler claimed to be working at the behest of God, that the US can't have been founded on Christian tenets?
> 
> What a maroon.



I would guess that Bod's point is that just because some of the founders claimed to be forming the country on Christian principles doesn't make it so, just as any claims of Christian principles by Hitler would be untrue.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

This is a map of WWII Europe. I can't find the nation of Third Reich anywhere.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And I am baffled...so are you saying that because Hitler claimed to be working at the behest of God, that the US can't have been founded on Christian tenets?
> ...



Except that Hitler never claimed to be a Christian

Oh, also. WHy is the guy so willing to believe that every founding father that claims we were founded on Christian tenets was lying ; but the SINGLE example we can find of him claiming that we weren't (The Treaty of Tripoli) he wants to believe as 100% FACT and in fact RIDICULED the idea that the treaty included that simply as an appeasement to Muslims?

Because he's full of shit and ignorant of history, that's why.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 4, 2011)

Well give Bod a break here as Wiki and the infamous online Diction does describe The Third Reich as the German State from 1933 to 1945.  So somebody only informed by the never entirely trustworthy Wikipedia network would draw that conclusion.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica, a far more reliable source in my opinion, defines The Third Reich as:

Third Reich, official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich).

And this too, while not actually making the Third Reich a country, does not completely negate Bod's argument either.  More wrong than right though.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Well give Bod a break here as Wiki and the infamous online Diction does describe The Third Reich as the German State from 1933 to 1945.  So somebody only informed by the never entirely trustworthy Wikipedia network would draw that conclusion.
> 
> The Encyclopedia Brittanica, a far more reliable source in my opinion, defines The Third Reich as:
> 
> ...



Hitler NEVER referred to Germany the country as the Third Reich, he envisioned The Third Reich encompassing FAR more than just Germany.

He is wrong , and rather than just saying " I was wrong guys" he continues, all the while accusing other people of being wrong about things.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

It's just more obfuscation meant to divert people from the fact that America was, in fact, founded on Christian values.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It's just more obfuscation meant to divert people from the fact that America was, in fact, founded on Christian values.



It seems like more than that to me. It is just plain childish. Who can't admit to a simple error and would rather just keep claiming the same claims over and over?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

A liar.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It's just more obfuscation meant to divert people from the fact that America was, in fact, founded on Christian values.



How so?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well give Bod a break here as Wiki and the infamous online Diction does describe The Third Reich as the German State from 1933 to 1945.  So somebody only informed by the never entirely trustworthy Wikipedia network would draw that conclusion.
> ...



And you know this.....how?


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

Can anyone explain why certain posters here are allowed to assert that country A is founded on Christian principles  because its founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles.

But Country B is NOT founded on Christian principles even tho IT'S founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles?


What's up with that?


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Can anyone explain why certain posters here are allowed to assert that country A is founded on Christian principles  because its founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles.
> 
> But Country B is NOT founded on Christian principles even tho IT'S founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles?
> 
> ...



I know that Hitler never referred to Germany the country as the Third Reich for the same reason I know that Hitler never claimed the NAZIS were Christians, because there is not a single instance where he ever said either one. NOT ONE.

On the other hand, we have NUMEROUS examples of our founding fathers calling the US a nation founded on Christian principles, yet you ignore each and every one of them.

This is my last response to you, because I don't argue with children. Admit to the errors you've made in this thread and we can converse.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain why certain posters here are allowed to assert that country A is founded on Christian principles  because its founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles.
> ...



You didn't look at the source I linked...did you?   That's the only reason you'd say such a wrong statement as I bolded.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





This is my last response to you, because I don't argue with children. Admit to the errors you've made in this thread and we can converse


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Well, since I've made no errors that I can see...I guess you'll be running away now.  TTFN.   See you tomorrow.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Can anyone explain why certain posters here are allowed to assert that country A is founded on Christian principles because its founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles.
> 
> But Country B is NOT founded on Christian principles even tho IT'S founders were Christian and they said/wrote that they followed Christian principles?
> 
> ...


 
What's up with that is that you didn't provide any evidence that it's true.

Hitler saying he was doing God's work is not the same as founding a country on Christian tenets.

It's a matter of the English language, and your inability to navigate it. It's impossible to explain to you because you don't know what the words mean. We've explained ad nauseum how a group of men who were structuring a new nation, who come to a consensus of what they will build and how has no bearing on whether or not the country is a theocracy. Their faith has nothing to do with it. 

You won't acknowledge the truth and simple fact, so there's no point in continuing. You'll just continue to lie and make stuff up. Really, what can be done with that?


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

This thread has saddened me .


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Interesting considering he was raised a Roman Catholic and:



> "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."





> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)



and

feel free to look up even more in this link I provide once more:


Hitler's Christianity

A link that you oddly did not read or ignored what you read when you said that Hitler never claimed he was a Christian.


----------



## bodecea (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> This thread has saddened me .



I'm sorry.  I tried to let you down gently.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has saddened me .
> ...



Well , you are correct that you are the reason this thread saddened me. You're a liar. PERIOD. You attribute statements to people that they never made, you make up facts, you twist quotes. You deny facts. 

You're pathetic, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you disagree with me on this particular thread. I found myself in agreement with your belief in a different thread earlier, but still realized that you're just a dishonest poster. You disgust me, how can we EVER have an honest discourse in this country when people refuse to be honest?


Oh, and it has come to my attention that you are in fact a female, and I had been calling you a guy all along. Apologies for that.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
"The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraodinary man and that other parts are of the fabric of inferior minds."


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
> "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraodinary man and that other parts are of the fabric of inferior minds."



M'eh, that is proof of nothing brother. I myself find it hard to credit the entire Bible as being fact, but I am a Christian.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
> ...



I am Christian also so how does both of us being Christian make a nation founded on religion?
Or a lot of Founders being Christian?
When has Congress ever passed legislation based on Christianity?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
> "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraodinary man and that other parts are of the fabric of inferior minds."


 
Once again..their personal faith has nothing to do with the FACT that they founded the country on Christian tenets.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
What does any of that have to do with the fact that the ff stated over and over that they founded the country on Christian concepts?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

She said obfuscation. huh huh, cool.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

I'm sure you think so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

Good old Christian tradition:


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




It's verifiable fact that 92% of the men who signed the DoI were Christians. They have NEVER passed a law based on Christianity because those Christians decided in their infinite wisdom that although we as a nation believe in God that we would NEVER have a law dictating that anyone MUST do so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 4, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I agree with those facts. 
Except we as a nation do not believe in God.
I have a personal relationship different than others.


----------



## TheBrain (May 4, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I would agree with that sentiment, but the underlying fact is that we USED to believe in the Christian God as a nation. That isn't meant to imply that EVERY person in the US was a Christian, but the overwhelming majority were and they founded this country espousing the morals that underpin the Christian religion. Even those who didn't believe in the Christian God were certainly respectful enough to admit that the morals espoused by Christianity were good and pure and worthy of mimicking.

So I submit to you that the reason we are no longer a Christian nation, and let's face it we aren't, isn't because we weren't founded as one, it is because people today , in general, have no morals and want no one telling them how they should behave; especially a dusty old "fairy tale" of a book.

People who deny we were founded on Christian principles simply hate Christianity because it flies in the face of today's do what you want culture and to admit that we were once a Christian nation would require them admitting that they have strayed from what this country was founded on (which certainly wasn't "do whatever you want")

Oh, and of course we all have a different personal relationship with God, and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 4, 2011)

Whether or not we're a Christian NATION has nothing to do with whether or not we were founded on Christian tenets.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Brain, respectfully, this nation WAS NOT founded on majority rule.
This nation and the Constitution is founded on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
That is why no national religion was named anywhere.
Oh, they wanted to do it your way and have majority rule. That was shouted down and defeated. Look at how Senators are apportioned, NOT BY MAJORITY POPULATION, and how the electoral college works for the election the executive, NOT BY MAJORITY VOTE, you can see how smart the founders were in founding a nation on individual rights, NOT the rights of the majority.
Accordingly, as to the founding of this nation's government and laws, the fact that the majority of this nation was  majority Christian played no part. 
You people should know this. Don't they teach government in your schools?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Whether or not we're a Christian NATION has nothing to do with whether or not we were founded on Christian tenets.



Exactly.
But you still have societal mores confused with nation being founded.The nation was founded in trhe Continental Congress and Christianity had nothing to do with writing the Constitution and the seperation of powers. 
The societal mores of this country when founded were pretty much the same as they were the year before we were founded.
Christian. 
But societal mores and their religous biases, positives and negatives, did not found the government and laws.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Interesting post considering you said earlier than Hitler never claimed to be a Christian after I had linked to you quotes that he had said that very thing.  

I guess that it's just a case of you calling people liars NOT because they lie, but because you don't like what you hear.  You're not the only one.   But...it does make you appear dishonest when you use the word so inaccurately.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
> "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraodinary man and that other parts are of the fabric of inferior minds."



A perfect example that you can find quotes from our Founders on BOTH sides of the issue.   That makes them.......politicians.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Jefferson 1814 after he cut up the Bible and had his cut and paste "Jefferson's Bible":
> ...



Lonestar disagrees with you and much of my arguement in the last few pages have been addressing his assertion that their personal faith was the proof.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



And?


----------



## froggy (May 5, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html


Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers.
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% 
Presbyterian 30 18.6% 
Congregationalist 27 16.8% 
Quaker 7 4.3% 
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% 
Lutheran 5 3.1% 
Catholic 3 1.9% 
Huguenot 3 1.9% 
Unitarian 3 1.9% 
Methodist 2 1.2% 
Calvinist 1 0.6% 
TOTAL  204

appears the majority were religious.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not we're a Christian NATION has nothing to do with whether or not we were founded on Christian tenets.
> ...


 
No, I'm NOT confusing societal mores with the foundation of our government. 

The foundation of the nation did not take place solely in the Continental Congress. The foundation of our nation started when a group of men decided to break from England and become independent. And the activities and discussion that took place from that time on is well recorded...and all the ff stated, repeatedly, during that time, and after, and since...that they FOUNDED THE COUNTRY UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Even if that were true, so what? The loons who want to pretend the FF were either lying or ignorant are the ones who keep carping about how they weren't necessarily Christian.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



"Independent"
Exactly
Independence from the religous stranglehold on government where they came from.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

froggy said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



I don't think you would find any argument over that Froggy...however, where is the evidence that the U.S. was founded upon Christian tenets?


You'd think those Christian tenets would easily be pointed out.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Exactly.   They had SEEN what happens when countries were founded and run upon Christian tenets....(you see, the sticky wicket is WHOSE Christian tenets do you use?)...and they wisely decided to get away from that completely in the founding of our government.   That doesn't mean they abandoned Christianity in their own lives....but they made our government Christian...religion...neutral.   A very, very wise move.


----------



## peach174 (May 5, 2011)

The point is,that in order to remain a free nation and have civility in society,each and every citizen must
Think for yourself
Govern Yourself
Be responsible
Be accountable for your actions and word
take care of your neighbors
Have values and character
There will always be a minority who would never do this ,(criminals)
But these things must be taught to our young in order to have a civil society.
This is no longer being taught
Look at what is happening to our society.
Rioting in restaurants - people are no longer being responsible or accountable for their actions or words
Taking care of neighbors - is becoming like Hitlers regime where you turn your neighbors in (socialism) the only difference here is they are not being rounded up into camps and being killed - report to authority's that children do not have permits to sell lemonade or cookies this is just the top of many other types of turning your neighbor in to the authorities.
Have values and character - we have media ,news and internet publications that will not report true and accurate news.
Our 1st Amendment says the right of the people to assemble peacefully to petition the Government not riot in the streets and destroy things.
Without these teachings you must then have a government who takes over.
You have now lost your freedom when Government starts telling you what you can and cannot do.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
You don't understand the language, do you?

They hadn't seen what happened when countries were founded upon Christian tenets. They had seen what happened when the state interfered with religion and worship.

Two different things.

Again, you don't seem to understand what "found" means.

"
To the end of his life, Jefferson was a firm believer in the natural rights of the individual. In his words, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." One of the most significant expressions of that conviction was his authorship of Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom, which he always considered one of his greatest accomplishments."
Spotlight Biography: Founding Fathers

"An Act for establishing religious Freedom. 
*Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;*
*that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do*,
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;
that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. "

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

The founding fathers were quite definite that they were motivated by, and founded this country in, Christian belief. 

So again, I ask you...were they lying, Bod? YOu refuse to address the fact that they said, specifically, that they founded the country on Christian principle. You insist they did not. So...what was their motivation for lying? If, as you imply, it is just a matter of appealing to the masses, why on earth would they reference God in their personal correspondence with other founding fathers, their wives, their families and their friends? It was the touchstone of everything they did, and their touchstone when determining what freedom means and how it should be protected.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The founding fathers were quite definite that they were motivated by, and founded this country in, Christian belief.
> 
> So again, I ask you...were they lying, Bod? YOu refuse to address the fact that they said, specifically, that they founded the country on Christian principle. You insist they did not. So...what was their motivation for lying? If, as you imply, it is just a matter of appealing to the masses, why on earth would they reference God in their personal correspondence with other founding fathers, their wives, their families and their friends? It was the touchstone of everything they did, and their touchstone when determining what freedom means and how it should be protected.



Words....Allie.   Where is the substance?


If, as you say, our Founders founded this country in Christian beliefs....those would be.........?

People say and write all sorts of things...the proof is in the Constitution.  The proof is in our laws.  The proof is in how our country was and is run.   Where is that proof?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The point is,that in order to remain a free nation and have civility in society,each and every citizen must
> *Think for yourself
> Govern Yourself
> Be responsible
> ...



Are these dictated thru our Constitution, laws, actions of our government?  Are these things that are unique to our country?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

As I said, you don't understand the language.

Our country wasn't founded just upon the Constitution. There was a lot of groundwork prior...and THAT is the foundation.

Again you prove you're dishonest.


----------



## editec (May 5, 2011)

Allie, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Ever hear of the AGE OF  ENLIGHTENMENT?

Do you have a clue what it means?

Well I can assure you the founding fathers understood it and they understood exactly what it mean in relation to Christian values, too.

READ _A BOOK_, honey.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Still waiting on an answer Dr. Drock.

Dr. Drock


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

editec said:


> Allie, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> Ever hear of the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT?
> 
> ...


 
So Jefferson was lying when he said freedom comes from God?

And when he, and many, many others, said he was founding the country on that basic Christian belief?

Or are you going to say that he didn't understand what "Christian" means?

Lol..I'm amazed at the arrogance, and stupidity, of modern day Christian-haters who think anybody takes them seriously when they attempt to tell us what the founding fathers REALLY meant, lol. 

You and Bod ain't no Jefferson and Adams, honey.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

I see you referenced Wiki after telling me to read a book...

So does Wiki come in book form now?

LOL! I love pseudo-intellectuals.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Didn't believe in God or weren't christians?

Let's keep the question relevant to the topic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The answer to my question would be none.

The truth is some were Deist, some were Calvanist but all read from the Holy Bible and oft times quoted from it. Now they had differing opinions on some scripture but it's no different than it is today between the variety of Christian faiths. Some Deist rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher one example Is Thomas Jefferson's Bible. And even though they were not typical Christians, they held to the same Christian principles.


----------



## peach174 (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The point is,that in order to remain a free nation and have civility in society,each and every citizen must
> ...



Yes - what do you think it means in Amendment I for the right of the people to to petition the government peacefully, not riot, you get arrested for doing so.
What is unique about our country is that we have a government by the people, for the people. That God gave us unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
All though that is now become a government for the government, by the government, I believe that we the people will be able to correct it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



"They had seen what had happened when the state interfered with religion and worship"

You have it backwards once again Allie.
They had seen what happened WHEN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND RELIGION interfered with the governments.
So they FOUNDED this government and laws WITH NO CHRISTIAN OR RELIGOUS INTERFERENCE.
You know that is it. Why not just admit it. I believe you know 100% but are too stubborn to admit it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



When have every Christian from all of the numuerous denominations ever held to the same Christian principles ever in this country?
The core strength of Christianity USED TO BE it's diversity. Especially the Baptists, Quakers and Friends  movements. My relatives helped with the underground rail road and were anti slavery since the 1600s. Modern day conservative evangelicals have attempted to ruin that history of American Christianity, especially politically.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
Er..no, when the government interfered with people's right to worship as they please.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...


 
Actually, liberals are attempting to do what oppressive gov'ts have done throughout the ages...persecute people based on their faith.

It has now extended to pretending that our ff were lying when they stated, repeatedly, over and over and over, that they were founding a country upon pure Christian principle.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



They all share the same basic principles. But they do have different intepretations of scripture as I've already stated. 

Slavery? Another red herring.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Tell that to the slaves.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

That was patently stupid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Are you claiming with a straight face Allie that every European government at the time this nation was founded was not run and influenced by the Christian church?
And this nation was not founded on the Law and not religous influence?
Allie, you do know that the "government that interfered with people's right to worship as they please" WAS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH!
Allie, the Church of England WAS THE AUTHORITY THAT INTERFERED WITH PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO WORSHI[P AS THEY PLEASE.
All European governments at the time this nation was founded were run by the church.
We were the first not to allow that.
Weren't the Founders smart? They founded this nation with no interference from the church.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

No, I'm telling you straight up that is what the founding fathers were motivated. THEY TOLD US SO.

Are you telling me you know what they were REALLY motivated by, and are you saying they were liars?

This is willful ignorance. The facts are there, we have it in their own hands. In multiple records, from their own hands. This isn't just a thought that entered in and out, this is the PRIMARY motivation they had when creating the US...to apply Christian values and create a country that values and protects liberty.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Allie does not have it backwards.   Look to England, our Mother Country, and what the State (Henry VIII, then Mary, then Elizabeth, then James, then Charles, then Oliver Cromwell, then Charles II, then James II...finally the Glorious Revolution) did to the people and their religion.  

Our Founders saw that mess quite clearly and wanted no part of it.

The Government was created with NO Christian interference....but that is a two edged sword.....it was also clearly created so that religion had no government interference.   It was indeed a WALL between the two.   You cannot have Christian principles founding a country if there is a wall.   Christian principles include spreading the Faith, sharing the Word.....not seeing that in our government, are we?


*Note:   Even tho I have defended Allie's point, I still expect my daily neg rep.   It's a few hours late already...getting worried.*


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.



Some did...not all....not even the majority.  And those that did often did so in order to set up their own religious tyranny.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

Whether or not that's true, it has nothing to do with the principles upon which our country was founded and established.

"

The history of America is an awesome drama. Our nation is no accident. For hundreds of years, the dream of liberty was carried across European history to be birthed on these shores, and biblical truth, biblical thinking, played a pivotal role in the birthing of America. 
But was America founded on Christian principles? Just read the first words of the Declaration of Independence: 
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. 
From the beginning, America's founders accepted the reality that basic rights were inseparable from human beings and they recognized that those inalienable rights were not given by government nor acquired by force, but that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the gifts of the Creator. 
In 1844, the Court said, "Christianity is part of our common law." 
In 1892, the Supreme Court said this: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national because this is a religious people. This is historically true." 
In 1930, the U.S. Supreme Court said this: "We are a Christian people, according to our motto." 
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. The question isn't - Was America founded on Christian principles? The question is - what world view has given birth to and sustained America? The answer to that question is simple: Christianity. "
Rediscovering American History - The American Policy Roundtable


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

"

[SIZE=-1]Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as *it has pleased the almighty God *by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence&#8230;"[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of *Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. *Amen". Sounds Christian to me.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "*...God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise *without His aid?"*[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles *on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity *... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Isit not that the Declaration of Independence first organized *the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer&#8217;s mission *upon earth? That it laid *the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" *Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that *Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. *The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: *"By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; *and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, *religion and morality are indispensable supports. *In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, *who should labor to subvert these great pillars." *Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- *of our Christian nation *to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people*...This is a Christian nation." *There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".[/SIZE] 
Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What slaves?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.



Everybody seems to want to fight and can't see that most are arguing the same points, just stating them differently.  

The original settlers did not have entirely pure motives.  They wanted to be able to establish THEIR religion here without persecution from the Church of England and they did establish their own little theocracy being no more tolerant of other beliefs than was the Monarchy they left.

The Founders wanted no monarchy and no theocracy.  They envisioned a nation in which the people would have their rights recognized, protected, and defended and then be free to govern themselves free of tyranny of dictator, monarch, feudal lord, totalitarianism, or authoritarian church.  Our Constitution was brilliant in accomplishing that.

But if people are to be free, they must be free to have the sort of society they wish short of violating the unalienable rights of others.  Therefore the Puritan and other little theocracies that existed at the time were allowed to exist because the people wanted them.  That was the kind of society they wanted.  And once the people came to realize that the theocracy was not the kind of society they wanted, they were just as free to dissolve them.  Which they did within a single generation.

The Constitution, that gave such religious freedom to the Puritans, prohibited the Puritans from insisting that the Quakers or Roman Catholics or Calvinists in other colonies adopt Puritan rules and convictions.

It has been interesting to watch a people allowed to govern themselves to produce the most free, most innovative, most inventive, most productive, most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

We are now piece by piece chipping away at the foundations of that Constitutional principle to our detriment.  I think too few Americans even understand it any more.  And to me that is tragic.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Let's see...the slaves that existed in the newly formed United States of America at the time of the Founders and their founding "Christian principles"

You got other slaves in mind?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.
> ...



How so?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
How do we go about asking them?

I thought perhaps you were referring to the the slaves maintained in Islam...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So you want me to tell that to the slaves that no longer exist. 

You idiots will try anything to change the subject in a debate where you are clearly losing.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Psst you have already conceded that England was a theocracy at the time, slavery existed in England at the time. Slavery also existed in secular nations at the time. So PERHAPS slavery was simply an accepted institution by Christians and non Christians alike at the time.

You suck at this debate game. I know let's have a spelling contest............


----------



## Foxfyre (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The federal government is being pressured to order more and more of the people's lives.   Pressured to say what the people can and cannot have in the way of religious imagery, art, symbolism, custom, music, etc. etc.  Pressured to change definitions, to support this, to boycott that, to allow this, to forbid that, etc. etc. etc.  All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else.   It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage.  A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it.  Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs,  operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## peach174 (May 5, 2011)

Yep, That is what has been taken away from us, states rights.
We have to get Government under control and get our states rights back.
One of George Washington's best saying was - a little bit of heaven here on American soil for everyone.
Not quoting exactly what he said but  I am trying to get what he meant across to everyone.
Maybe Foxfyre knows the exact saying.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.
> ...



yea, the others were escaping the long arm of the law


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > ok, the original settlers  came to this country so they could practice their religion freely.  of course religion had a lot to do with the laws and regulations that were to guid this country.
> ...


The good thing was here there was room to expand and you could sent those pesky lutherans and quakers to Pennsyvania or something.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



well i was thinking sex slaves but I guess your refering to the cotton picking type


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Wait...people aren't allowed to have those things?



> Pressured to change definitions, to support this, to boycott that, to allow this, to forbid that, etc. etc. etc.



Pressured to boycott stuff?   By the government?



> All this would have been anathema to the Founders who saw each group or community or state having unalienable rights to order whatever society they wished to have short of violating the unalienable rights of somebody else.   It probably wasn't an issue for them, for instance, but they would say that a state that wanted 'gay marriage' should have gay marriage.  A state that did not want to recognize 'gay marriage' should not have to recognize it.  Ditto for abortion laws and religious customs,  operation of public education, etc. etc. etc.



So, let's talk of gay marriage.   What do you do if one state allows legal gay marriage and a legally married gay couple wants to move to a state that doesn't allow it?    What happens to the full faith clause in the Constitution?  Does it stop at gay couples?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Well, you also had the Proprietary Colonies like New York, New Jersey, North and South Carolina, Delaware, Virginia.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How do you think that will stand up to the Constitutionality test when compared to the Full Faith and Credit clause in Article IV?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Very well.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



It restored states rights to the states actually in the matter of marriage.  States have always been able to set the rules and regs re legal marriage and the federal government has properly stayed out of that.  But because all 50 states recognize marriages performed in other states, they were in danger of having ambitious courts use some distortion of precedence to force all states to recognize such marriages.  All the federal government did was give legal protection of a people's right not to recognize such a marriage. And it did not prohibit them from recognize such a marriage if that is what the people wanted.  That has always been the intent of the Constitution:  the people would have their rights secured and then they would choose themselves what sort of society they wished to have.

It further defined the traditional marriage as what the federal government would recognize related to regs and law pertaining to marriage in the tax code and related matters.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



We shall see eventually.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So, my wife and I cannot file federal income tax returns as a married couple while we can in CA?    How is that consistant application of the law?


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Why do you insist that although you don't have to be subjected to the morals of others, others should have to be subjected to your lack of morals?


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> ?
> 
> When and where did that happen? Please quote and link...



who are you asking?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



What are you talking about?  What lack of morals?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

ALLIE!   Where's my daily neg rep?????


----------



## Foxfyre (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



State and Federal law was never intended to be consistent except where unalienable rights are concerned.  The ONLY reason given for recognition of marriage in the tax code was to promote the general welfare, especially for children, that historically has been produced by marriage.  Traditional families including mom, dad, and kids have historically produced more stable neighborhoods, less crime, better schools, more prosperity all which benefit everybody.

I personally think it was a stretch to include even traditional marriage as a special interest group in the tax code if we go by strict Constitutional intent.  But because the included group is so broad and applied equitably across the board, I think it is less objectionable and harmful than is consideration of many other special interest groups. 

There are many laws within the states that benefit the people of those states that the Federal Government should not be involved in any way.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I've been led to believe you're gay? That is immoral behavior in my book. I realize that is going to upset you , but frankly I don't care. It's my moral code, and I am well within my rights in having it.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I hope you are not saying that gay families do not produce more stable neighborhoods, less crime, betters schools, and more prosperity with benefits everyone.

Or do our families not count in that equation?  (I know you are not trying to be rude...I just am curious and would love to hash this out with you)


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Absolutely I do not think gay "families" produce anything that is good for society as a whole.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I am saying nothing of the kind.  Nor am I saying that singles and transvestites and accordian players do not produce stable neighborhoods.  But historically, there is no evidence that these selective groups have consistently improved their neighborhoods and quality of life.  I have a gay god son who has lived luxuriously with his beloved, one of my favorite Facebook game friends, in an upscale Connecticutt neighborhood for many years now.  I know they are appreciated and beloved by their neighbors.   But one family does not a statistical trend trend make.

Historically it has been traditional families that produce more stable, more prosperous, more quality of life neighborhoods and it is traditional families that are deemed to be the best circumstances for the rearing of children.  It is therefore traditional families that were given special consideration in the tax code without respect to race, ethnicity, nation of origin, socioeconomic or political views, or sexual orientation for that matter.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



i think he means carpet munching


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> ALLIE!   Where's my daily neg rep?????



you want me to pick up the slack for her?


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



your wife? does that make you the husband?


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



well yes, but who settled them? people looking to get out of dodge for one reason or another. be it religion, trouble with the law, debt.  and then you had the indentured servants.

wasn't there an east jersey and a west jersey?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



We don't work?   We don't pay taxes?   We don't raise kids?  We don't put money into the economy?  We don't volunteer?

What is it exactly that makes you say what you do?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Not that I know of, unless you are thinking of Delaware.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No, that makes me the wife too.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



my colonial history is a little rough. but i though NJ  was original two separate charters, east and west. New Caesarea was one and I thought there was another but can't remember what it was.   oh well, not important


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



i'm just busting your chops.

do you have kids or anything? plans to?


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sure you do all those things, but you also live in a sinful lifestyle that is NOT equal to a traditional marriage, no matter how much you would like to pretend it does. And I say the EXACT same thing about heterosexuals that play house but aren't married. It is a sinful lifestyle that has a negative impact on society.

Also , I understand that you were in the Navy. Did you choose to become a lesbian after your naval career, or did you instead live a lie?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Yes, a 17 year old....the Light of our lives....soon to go off to college *sob


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



so at one time one of you weren't born gay? or you just had an experiment that went wrong or what?


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



cool.  both mine are in college now.  17? i thought you were younger. I guess we're about the same age. maybe not, i had kids later.    get ready to fork out the bucks   what are they going for?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Sinful in what way?



> is NOT equal to a traditional marriage, no matter how much you would like to pretend it does.



Not pretending anything.  We are legally married in the eyes the law and religiously married in the eyed of our church and god.[/quote]

Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it so.....just as if I were not too keen on your form of marriage, it would mean nothing but my opinion.



> And I say the EXACT same thing about heterosexuals that play house but aren't married. It is a sinful lifestyle that has a negative impact on society.



Heteros CAN get married in all 50 states....if they choose not to, that is their business....foolish if they love someone enough (IMO), but their business.   There are only a few places we can get married legally for those protections of life, health, children, and property...and those gay couples who wish to be married are flocking to those places.....has society crumbled there?



> Also , I understand that you were in the Navy. Did you choose to become a lesbian after your naval career, or did you instead live a lie?



Well, if you are really interested, I went in with very mixed feelings, but the questions they asked I could answer truthfully.  So explain how that would be living a lie while serving my country.   The good news is....now with DADT gone...no one has to live a lie.   Very good thing.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I'm an old fart...almost 56 now.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



we'll were the same age. me too, in july


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it so.....just as if I were not too keen on your form of marriage, it would mean nothing but my opinion.



> And I say the EXACT same thing about heterosexuals that play house but aren't married. It is a sinful lifestyle that has a negative impact on society.



Heteros CAN get married in all 50 states....if they choose not to, that is their business....foolish if they love someone enough (IMO), but their business.   There are only a few places we can get married legally for those protections of life, health, children, and property...and those gay couples who wish to be married are flocking to those places.....has society crumbled there?



> Also , I understand that you were in the Navy. Did you choose to become a lesbian after your naval career, or did you instead live a lie?



Well, if you are really interested, I went in with very mixed feelings, but the questions they asked I could answer truthfully.  So explain how that would be living a lie while serving my country.   The good news is....now with DADT gone...no one has to live a lie.   Very good thing.[/QUOTE]

I would certainly argue that a case can be made that in areas where you see large numbers of gays living that yes society is crumbling.

And if you were in the military prior to DADT as a gay, then you were violating the UCMJ as it was written at that time, meaning that you were not only living immorally by my standard, but that you were also living illegally according to a code that you volunteered to live by. Pretty shameful.

Oh, by the way. I am glad that gays can no serve openly in the military, it's no big deal. BUT that doesn't change the fact that prior to DADT - and I'm assuming you were in prior to DADT since I read in another thread that you were in long enough to retire - you were in violation of the UCMJ every single day of your career.  

Proving on two fronts that you have no morals.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



*I would certainly argue that a case can be made that in areas where you see large numbers of gays living that yes society is crumbling.*[/quote]
Where would that be?



> And if you were in the military prior to DADT as a gay, then you were violating the UCMJ as it was written at that time, meaning that you were not only living immorally by my standard, but that you were also living illegally according to a code that you volunteered to live by. Pretty shameful.[/qutoe]
> 
> Bummer...my fitreps say otherwise, my medals say otherwise and my honorable discharge and monthly retirement check say otherwise.
> 
> ...


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Where would that be?



> And if you were in the military prior to DADT as a gay, then you were violating the UCMJ as it was written at that time, meaning that you were not only living immorally by my standard, but that you were also living illegally according to a code that you volunteered to live by. Pretty shameful.[/qutoe]
> 
> Bummer...my fitreps say otherwise, my medals say otherwise and my honorable discharge and monthly retirement check say otherwise.
> 
> ...



so you're claim is that because no one asked, and you didn't get caught that we should just ignore the fact that you violated the UCMJ?

Or rather you would just like to pretend it never happened?

Sorry, but you violated the UCMJ whether you ever got caught or not.


Abusers, rapists,  and murderers everywhere will be THRILLED to know that in your opinion if they were never questioned or caught they in fact actually didn't commit the crime.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Ah...here it comes.   A honorably serving vet being compared to abusers, rapists and murderers.


THAT didn't take long, did it?   

I simply cannot understand why arguments like yours didn't convince the government to keep things like DADT in place.   

Oh well...thanks for the Retirement check, Brain.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



you are the most dishonest person I've ever came across. I didn't compare you to any of those things. I merely pointed out that if a person thinks they are not guilty of a crime if they didn't get caught , then that could apply to ANY crime.

By the way mental lightweight I am pro allowing gays in the military, that has no bearing on whether it was illegal prior to DADT or not. Are you too stupid to grasp that concept?

Now, true or false prior to DADT being a gay in the military was a crime?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> ALLIE! Where's my daily neg rep?????


 
You have been less trollish today and I haven't caught you in any over the top lies. Just general dishonesty but nothing to write home about.

I guess you need to work harder!


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ALLIE! Where's my daily neg rep?????
> ...



Oh, I don't know about that. She just dishonestly claimed that I was comparing her being gay to a rapist or murderer.

She is also refusing to admit that if she was gay and in the Navy prior to DADT that she was in fact in violation of the UCMJ whether she got caught or not.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

Whoops, missed it.


----------



## freedombecki (May 5, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Congress is modeled after the Presbyterian (Christian) system of representation. The only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was a Presbyterian (Christian) minister.

Congress itself is the consequence of Christianity. 

God bless the USA.


----------



## Spoonman (May 5, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



and abused by the supreme court


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Wait, did I thank you for my retirement check yet?


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I of course expected nothing better from you. I knew you had no honor before tonight, I just thought I'd give you a last chance. A simple, yes I admit that I was in violation of the UCMJ is all it would have taken. 

You're a disgrace to the uniform you wore, and that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with your sexual choices.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 5, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Anyone that believes that is beyond stupid.
Do you have any proof of your absurd claims?
Don't they teach history in the schools where you live?
Congress is modeled after the Romans and Greeks.
I am sure now you folks will claim the Greeks and Romans were also founded on Christian principles.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Let me check again....nope, your opinion didn't change my 21 years serving our country.   No need to thank me.   It was my pleasure to serve.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes, I'm aware you have no problem lying to yourself; but every person that reads this thread will now know that you disgraced your uniform by lying about violating the UCMJ.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Most people here know I'm retired military and that I am gay.  And they have for a long time.   It is only a very few like yourself who whine about my service to our country.  It says a great deal more about you than it does about me.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 5, 2011)

He's just pointing out that you have no problem with dishonesty.

And you don't.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I'm not whining about anything stupid. I am merely pointing out that you were in violation of the UCMJ and don't even have the honor to admit that. I in fact have agreed with you that the rules needed to be changed, and I'm glad they have been, but that doesn't change the fact that your honor is impugned by you're lying about it. Your lack of honor in this area leads me to question the honesty of EVERY post you make and further leads me to believe that gays can NOT be seen as a good moral example for anyone.


----------



## Montrovant (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I hope this was just a dig at Bod because whoa, that's a leap!  Bod is dishonest, therefor gays are immoral?

This is probably one of those conversations I shouldn't have jumped into.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> He's just pointing out that you have no problem with dishonesty.
> 
> And you don't.



I served my country...our country...for 21 years come bad or good.   Please....DO continue about how I was dishonest about serving.   It entertains me to watch your pettiness.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Not QUITE what I was saying. Merely saying that she is on here and made the specific claim that gays can be as moral as non gays and then immediately proceeded to lie and refuse to admit to it, or anything else she has gotten wrong in this thread for that matter. 

Just seems that if one were wanting to prove that they were as moral as the next person, they would in fact act morally.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > He's just pointing out that you have no problem with dishonesty.
> ...



No one  questions whether you fulfilled your duties moron. A drug dealer could certainly fulfill their obligation to the military as well, but they are violating the UCMJ. 

Do you acknowledge that you violated the UCMJ as it stood at the time by being a gay in the military, yes or no?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

Montrovant said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


They're unhappy because I was willing to forego an "out" life to serve our country for 21 years.    It seems to upset their high moral standards.

They probably won't want to hear how I also was willing to forego the wifeswapping ring in my first command....and the "What goes on deployment, stays on deployment" atmosphere in my first deploying command.   Yes, those moral heteros sure showed me a thing or two.


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Nope, simply sad that you claimed to be a moral person and then proceeded to lie and be dishonest. It's a matter of fact that prior to DADT it was illegal for gays to serve in the military so you're not fooling anyone by denying that you were in violation of the UCMJ.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Perhaps you would like a tissue?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

C,mon Allie!   Where's my neg rep???......people are counting on you to spread rep around each day so you can come back to me!


----------



## TheBrain (May 5, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So you refuse to admit to being a liar, but won't go so far as to deny it.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I bet, when you were in, you were the guy doing bunk checks and sticking your nose into everyone's social life in the hope of turning someone in.  I knew a few like that.   They didn't last long.  We had a guy in one command, a nav LT who wrote his wife telling about all the guys screwing the groupies in town.   He got locked in the hangar locker room for 24 hours....everyone seemed to forget to look for him.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> C,mon Allie! Where's my neg rep???......people are counting on you to spread rep around each day so you can come back to me!


 
Good grief, what an idiot.
I've never been hounded for neg rep before.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > C,mon Allie! Where's my neg rep???......people are counting on you to spread rep around each day so you can come back to me!
> ...



I'm going for the record.   And I've got people wanting pos rep from you as you spread it around so you can get back to me.


----------



## froggy (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



WAS AMERICA FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION?


Written by: Unknown    Posted on: 03/31/2003


Category: Educational


Source: CCN

WAS AMERICA FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION?

The question of our Biblical origins has been bandied around in intellectual circles for many years, especially now that there is a renewed Christian involvement in the culture of AMerica.

The major hurdle in answering the question is to define terms properly. The concept of a Christian nation is often written off because of misconceptions as to what this means. A Christian nation is not one in which al people in a society are all Christians, just as in an Islamic country, not all people are necessarily Moslems. But in a Christian nation, as our Founders would have defined it, the principles and institutional foundations are Biblically based and the people in general share a Biblical world-view.

Nor should we confuse the term "Christian Nation" with a "Christian state." since the word state refers to a political body or the body politic of the nation, the term "Christian state" would mean one in which the government ruled in religious matters through a state church. This would, of course, preclude religious liberty.

              All Laws Are a Codification of a Religious System

Nevertheless, it is imperative to understand that all laws of a nation are the codification of a presuppositional world-view, i.e., the laws of the Untied States have presupposed form the beginning that the Bible was the foundation of our system. Rev. John Wingate Thornton said:

    "The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy     Adams, was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the     principles of civil government with the PRINCIPLES OF     CHRISTIANITY."

Rev. Thorton's words condense and paraphrase comments Adams made in a July 4, 1837 oration, which are even more powerful in their full statement:

    "Is it not that, in the chain of events, the birthday of the nation     is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it     forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation?

    Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the     social compact on the foundation of the Redeemers's mission? That     it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts     of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge     of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven     at the birth of the Saviour and predicted by the greatest of the     Hebrew prophets 600 years before?"

Such convictions as these concerning the Christian foundations of our government persisted into comparatively recent times. John W. Whitehead analyzes the Supreme Court's historic understanding of the relationship between Christianity and government in the United States:

    "In 1892 the United States Supreme Court made an exhaustive study     of the supposed connection between Christianity and the government     of the United States.

    After researching hundreds volumes of     historical documents, the Court asserted 'these references add a     volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances     that this is a religious people...a Christian nation.' Likewise in     1931, Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland reversed the 1892     decision in relation to another case and reiterated that Americans     are a 'Christian people' and in 1952 Justice William O. Douglas     affirmed 'we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose     a Supreme Being.'"

            Christianity the Dominant Influence in America

America was under the dominant influence of Biblical Christianity from 1620 until well into the nineteenth century. There are many who, in their desire to lay claim to the great accomplishments of that era, have tried to minimize the Christian influence and take the credit for themselves. But only God deserves the glory for what He did in the founding of this great nation.

People from many denominations came to America in the early years, but the vast majority of them shared a common faith in the basic tenets of Christianity. Whitehead's research reveals that

    "when the Constitution was adopted and sent to the States for     ratification, the population of America numbered only about 3 1/4     million. The Christian population numbered at least 2 million.     James c. Hefley has commented that about 900,00 were Scotch or     Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, with another million also holding to     basic Calvanistic beliefs."

                  Christian Nation in Apostasy

It must be admitted that today, although we are still essentially a Christian nation in form (i.e., the Constitutional, legal structure, church affiliation), we are not one in conduct. For the first 250 years of our existence Christian character determined the conduct of self-government in homes, churches, and civil society. But today we have forgotten our heritage and only the skeleton remains. Even so, deep within the American character there lingers a Christian conscience ready to be revived by the spirit of God through awakened american Christian patriots.

It should be noted that by stating that America was a Christian nation we are not saying that we were the "New Israel" or a special race that God must bless. Quite the contrary, God Blessed America because our forefathers built their nation with reliance on Him and His Word, and because God had a Gospel purpose for our nation. If we turn from His purpose we can expect His judgement, perhaps greater judgement than other nations because "to whom much is given, much is required."

Every nation can be a nation under God if it chooses to follow Jesus Christ. Our history is unique in that we were allowed to express the full flower of Christian civilization and government. This fact should give us cause to ponder the price we have paid for the maintenance of our Christian liberty. Will we be the generation that presides over its death?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



What an immature joke you are. Grow up. There are over 50,000 gays serving in the military now. Well DUH.
My father was on Saipan June 1944 as a 1st Lt. They were having problems downloading ammunition for his rifle platoons. He went back to the off loading area on the beach where they were checking off each container of ammunition as that was military rules. He ordered the entire ship offloaded and distributed immediately, to hell with the rules of accounting. A Captain came by and outranked him. He ordered my father to sign off on a large load of ammo and get back to his troops. Dad signed off on his troops ammo and sent it all up to the front lines. He then found enough men to download the entire ship and signed off on the entire load. He signed the name Lt. Charles Pocheck, obviously not his name. After the war and at the reunions they had an annual Charles Pocheck award.This was awarded to the Marine that had done the craziest thing to break the UCMJ rule one time or another in serving their country. The tradition goes on to this day. I went with Dad to a few of those reunions in Orlando, Fla. The running joke was "They must still be looking for that guy." Dad died last year, Memorial Day, May 30. My sister has his shirt that he received in the mid 50s from one of those 2nd Marine WWII reunions. They had the name "Lt. Charles Pocheck" on it. Gag gift each year.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



A touching but irrelevant story. I am sorry to hear about your father though.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You would lose your bet, and that doesn't change the fact that YOU brought your morals into this thread, not ME. You are the one who said you could you be just as honest as a straight person, YOU are the person who said you could make as good an example as a straight person. That is the ONLY reason I mention the FACT that you violated the UCMJ on a daily basis. You dishonestly try to make it seem like I am talking about the fact that you are gay. I am not. I am bringing up the fact that you are dishonest. You now want to claim that the ends justify the means and so it is okay that you violated the UCMJ b/c you were honorably discharged , but we both know that is not how it works. It is NEVER acceptable to violate the UCMJ. But lying about the violation is what TRULY makes you dishonorable. 

You disgrace every person who has ever served in the military when you don't even have the simple honor to admit that yes you violated the UCMJ.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Oh....I don't think I would.   



> and that doesn't change the fact that YOU brought your morals into this thread, not ME. You are the one who said you could you be just as honest as a straight person, YOU are the person who said you could make as good an example as a straight person. That is the ONLY reason I mention the FACT that you violated the UCMJ on a daily basis. You dishonestly try to make it seem like I am talking about the fact that you are gay. I am not. I am bringing up the fact that you are dishonest. You now want to claim that the ends justify the means and so it is okay that you violated the UCMJ b/c you were honorably discharged , but we both know that is not how it works. It is NEVER acceptable to violate the UCMJ. But lying about the violation is what TRULY makes you dishonorable.
> 
> You disgrace every person who has ever served in the military when you don't even have the simple honor to admit that yes you violated the UCMJ.



How did I violate the UCMJ....please point out the EXACT article(s) I violated.   I look forward to this.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

Successful thread derailment by bodumbass.

Losers have a tendency to do that. 

They can't win the argument at hand so they change the subject. And oft times lose that argument too, as seems to be the case here.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Successful thread derailment by bodumbass.
> 
> Losers have a tendency to do that.
> 
> They can't win the argument at hand so they change the subject. And oft times lose that argument too, as seems to be the case here.



You accuse ME of derailing this?     You might want to go back and look again, Lonestar_'Logic'.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Successful thread derailment by bodumbass.
> 
> Losers have a tendency to do that.
> 
> They can't win the argument at hand so they change the subject. And oft times lose that argument too, as seems to be the case here.



Are you the play by play or color commentator?


----------



## froggy (May 6, 2011)

America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 6, 2011)

froggy said:


> America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.



Was stealing the land from the Indians and then slaughtering their women and children founded on Christianity?
Was that wicked? What recent wicked events compare with that?


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

froggy said:


> America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.



What exactly was her "Blessed State", froggy?  I think you are looking at the past with rose colored glasses.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.


Almost my entire drive to work this morning I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and on a couple of the country roads by my house I did a rolling stop.

How am I going to sleep tonight ?  My self-confidence has plundered with this new realization................


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Successful thread derailment by bodumbass.
> ...



Yes I did.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Successful thread derailment by bodumbass.
> ...



Merely an observer.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

froggy said:


> America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.



wish i had some rep


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.
> ...



government stealing from us for their personal gain


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.
> ...



In order to have stolen land one must have had to own it. The indians never owned the land.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



What the heck were the Indians doing on the white man's land!!!!!!?


And I do have to ask....if the Indians didn't own the land, why did they have conflicts with other Indian tribes and with the white men over ownership of the land?


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Ok, observe for us the post where I derailed this thread....excuse me, where I SUCCESSFULLY derailed this thread.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It wasn't the white man's land until we claimed it.

They had conflicts with other tribes for many reasons, none of which was over the ownership of land.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Your admission is noted.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

I'm still floored that she demanded a neg rep.


----------



## JohnA (May 6, 2011)

The T said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > WADR, are you expecting someone to argue this point?
> ...



 Its not what is said as to how you judge the sincerity but by what is DONE   


 ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL  

except for slaves 
where were thier  rights to life liberty and happiness ?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

What difference does it make to the argument?

None atall.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 6, 2011)

JohnA said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



News flash:  slavery was abolished in 1865.

It isn't difficult to go back to the history of the colonial culture to learn how and why some of those colonists could justify slavery.  Most did not agree with that rationale but put as most important the union that would ultimately recognize and protect everybody's rights, including black Americans.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Only after the bloodiest war in our history and the South had to be dragged back kicking and screaming for the next 100 years to be FORCED by law to treat their black citizens as.....well....citizens.



> It isn't difficult to go back to the history of the colonial culture to learn how and why some of those colonists could justify slavery.  Most did not agree with that rationale but put as most important the union that would ultimately recognize and protect everybody's rights, including black Americans.



Follow the money.....another Christian tenet?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.



Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well.  To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives,* turn a blind eye* to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.



Hardly.   Interpol has one of it's largest sub bureaus on human trafficking...which is only 2nd to Drug trafficking and a greater problem than gun trafficking.   But you might want to check your last assertion.....Russia and SE Asia are pretty high on the list as sources.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Truely?   What were their conflicts over then?


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives,* turn a blind eye* to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.
> ...



Oh, btw, Allie...I did a check here:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/HT-globalpatterns-en.pdf

Look particularly at the Figure 26 map on page 59....your assertion about "Conducted primarily by Islam" is very wrong.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.
> ...



You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



That's a great find, I'm sure it will be ignored but really gives insight into where this stuff takes place.

Sad.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
You mean you're an idiot?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Tunnel vision always focuses on one aspect and ignore the whole.   Black people certainly were not at the forefront of the abolition movement in the 1800's.  And black people would not have succeeded in the abolition of segregation in the 1900's without a majority of white people joining that cause.

Honest people give credit where credit is due.  Ideologues always look for a way to diminish the contributions of those they despise.


----------



## peach174 (May 6, 2011)

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Blacks had no power, zero, nada.  No one cared what they wanted or said.  It was totally a movement pushed by whites. They were the only ones who had a voice.  Blaks wanted freedom but most didn't even know what it really entailed. most had never been free.  In fact when they first gained their freedom most suffered more initially then when they were slaves. Becasue now they were on their own and there was nothing for them.  No education, no skills, no social standing.  in reality it was like taking kids and tossing them into an adult world and expected to survive. Only they were also hated.  

And it was whites who continued to push for improvement. Yes, when blacks finally started to get a voice of their own and stand up for themselves, they were the ones who physically suffered.  But it was whites who again said enough and became the mouthpiece for change.  

Wrongs aren't always righted over night. it takes time to make radical change. but it also takes people in a position to make change to move the needle even slightly.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.


Many christian whites risked scorn, persecution and even legal penalty becasue they knew the system was wrong.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.



A large number of them being Quakers who had been against slavery long before anyone else.   And they CERTAINLY were not members of a church that supported slavery to the point of scisim.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.
> ...


and prominant rolls were played by presbyterians, wesleyans, congregationalists, methodists, baptists.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


These people had nothing to do with the Abolition movement?

Frederick Douglass
David Walker
Henry Highland Garnet
James Forten
Robert Purvis
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth


I'm sorry, but this was not a case of the poor helpless negro being saved by the gallant white....alone.  Free blacks in the North were leading characters within the Abolitionist movement, even before many of the white names we know from history.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



It split the Methodists and Baptists.   But the Quakers were first and foremost...even before the Revolution.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.
> 
> 
> Almost my entire drive to work this morning I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and on a couple of the country roads by my house I did a rolling stop.
> ...



You're missing the point. In the military one is expected to act with honor even if one doesn't get caught doing something wrong, violating the UCMJ is certainly not living by that code. Are gays the only ones who violate that code? Of course not, but a gay can't violate that code and then claim to be honorable. They are not honorable. No matter what their discharge papers say. So the claim that a gay who violated the UCMJ is as honorable as everyone else is bogus.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



oh please. they had no representation.  blacks were revolting against slavery from the beginging and it fell on deaf ears, until whites. Yes Whites, started to champion the casue it went no where


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



the quakers were sure not the majority. but btw, the quakers are still white christians   the primary stops along the railroad were white christian churches.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Look up David Walker.....he was so effective,  he was silenced by the South.

http://www.cerritos.edu/soliver/American Identities/Black abolitionists/black_abolitionists.htm

Just one source.....google "black abolitionists"


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.
> ...



I just did a quick look through and I didn't see anything in the UCMJ that says a gay can't serve, I thought DADT wasn't that a gay couldn't serve, but the law said you couldn't talk about it?

If I'm wrong let me know, but as a sidebar laws can be immoral and violating them could be viewed as a moral action.

The biggest issue you have from what I've read isn't that she violated any law, it's that you're prejudiced.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



ok i'm really confused here now. i don't need to look him or them up.  but you are pretty much proving my point , for me with all of this


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...




Maybe I'm the confused one here....were you not saying that the blacks were pretty much powerless and the abolition movement was white christian driven?


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



We are talking about PRIOR to DADT, which she indicated that she served then , and PRIOR to DADT it was absolutely a violation to serve if you were gay. Many in fact were removed from service for exactly that. So does the fact that she didn't get drummed out mean she didn't violate the UCMJ? Of course not. She now admits that she served gay in violation of the rules that were then in place.

You're damned right I'm prejudiced. I am prejudiced against those who dishonor the uniform they wore by LYING. As for gays. I am FOR allowing them to serve, but realize that what I want is irrelevant in respect to the UCMJ.

If this were a moral issue , she would proud that she violated the UCMJ and have no problem that she violated it, but instead she denies that her serving as a gay prior to DADT was in fact a violation of the UCMJ.

Honor is a word that is tossed around with reckless abandon in the civilian world, but in the military world when we speak of honor we mean someone who is truthful, trustworthy, and honorable and we mean it. Honor doesn't simply cease to exist when one retires if one ever had it to begin with.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



no, i said the blacks took the the brunt of the physical repercussions from being vocal. and that their movement never gained traction until it gained white sponsorship.  blacks could have been as vocal as they wanted, but if it didn't have white backing they would have only ended up dead.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It doesn't do any good to explain.
> 
> Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.
> 
> Imagine living with that.



I'm safe, i'm a man


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I meant prejudice towards gays, not towards people who break the UCMJ.

I still don't think DADT said you couldn't be gay and serve.  I think it says you couldn't openly talk about being gay and sodomy is against the UCMJ.

So being gay is ok, just don't talk about it, or if you're a gay man you can't have gay sex.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



OK, I can go with that....I was mistaken in the point you were trying to make.   But blacks were not completely helpless and passive in this endeavor either....would you agree?


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It doesn't do any good to explain.
> 
> Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.
> 
> Imagine living with that.



Wow, Allie!   That's a symptom of one of the more severe cases of reflective behavior I've ever seen.    Impressive in a way.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It doesn't do any good to explain.
> 
> Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.
> 
> Imagine living with that.



Yes I have figured out that she is just here to fight. She has no interest , any maybe no capability of , learning anything.

She's a disgrace and I'm done wither.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...




Nope I have no ill will towards gays and support letting them serve. But you are wrong, prior to DADT it was against the UCMJ to serve. That was the entire point of DADT.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't do any good to explain.
> ...



You are certainly free to run away...especially considering you can't point out what part of the UCMJ I violated as you accused me of doing:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3611923-post1858.html


----------



## Spoonman (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



i never said they were passive.  infact i think the words i used was they bore the brunt of the physical retaliation for their efforts.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Just clarifying.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious

So, I suppose gays who don't have sex weren't violating the UCMJ.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't sound like it's saying no gays in the military, I'll need to see a quote from old legislation or something specifically saying no gays in the military to buy that. As that's not what I've seen from the searches I've done.

Sure seemed like to me you made a lot of posts talking about how morally awful it was for a human to be gay .


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious
> 
> So, I suppose gays who don't have sex weren't violating the UCMJ.



So anyone in the military committing sodomy was a disgrace to their Uniform and is dishonest, eh?


(BTW...what makes you think I committed sodomy during my career?)


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Come on man. You are either not reading, or you're deliberately being dishonest.

We are NOT discussing DADT , we are discussing about the military PRIOR to DADT, that means BEFORE. Before DADT gays were absolutely kicked out of the military. PERIOD. Bode claims to have served in the Navy before DADT was enacted. She also claims to be gay. Therefor it stand to reason that she acted illegally.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
No, you weren't. Your "clarifying" involves ignoring what was said, pretending it wasn't clear, and attributing a completely different meaning to the statement.

What you attempt to do is to muddy the waters. The exact opposite of clarifying.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious
> ...



As I said, I'm done talking to you about this matter. You have no desire to have an actual conversation about anything.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I have no problem with you running away.   Go if you want to.   But it's pretty obvious you have painted yourself into a corner on this o/t discussion and cannot find your way out honorably.   

TTFN


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Oh ok I didn't know about the timing, but even still I'm going to need to see proof that gays were kicked out for being gay.

I'm not taking a definitive stance that I know for a fact you're wrong, I'm just gonna need proof to believe it.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Really?   All gays in the military were kicked out before DADT?    How did I manage to stay in then?   How did all those gay soldiers and sailors before DADT manage to stay in then?


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



well, I'm going to assume then that you are in your early to mid 20s? I assure you that DADT was enacted specifically because gays were being kicked out of the military for no other reason than being gay. 

And honestly, here is how they did it. PRIOR to DADT a recruiter would ask, are you gay. If you answered yes, you were not accepted. If you were later found out to be gay, well you were kicked out for lying to your recruiter.  Either way your gay ass wasn't getting in the military as far as the old regime was concerned. Now me personally I disagree with that, I believe that a homosexual should be able to fight for the country that allows him or her to be homosexual; but the POLICY was to kick gays out. If Bode indeed served prior to DADT she was asked if she was gay at some point, AND she was aware that being gay was against the rules. IF she served then that is.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

Bod pretending what was said was actually something else.

What a surprise.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

See above as an example of Bode's dishonesty. I CLEARLY never said ALL gays were kicked out of the military prior to DADT, yet Bode falsely claims that I did. 

What a liar she is.  How could ANYONE take anything she says at face value.


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Again not saying you're wrong but I'll need to see proof, as I haven't found it myself.

Even still, if a law is wrong and it's violated I don't make morals judgements on people purely for breaking a law.

You and I agree gays should be allowed in the military now, in the past and in the future, so if we both think that it surprises me that you take issue with her being in the military at that time whether it was legal or not.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




So the Brain didn't say what I bolded.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Google gays kicked out of the military before DADT

Oh, and you are misunderstanding. I am not saying Bode's lack of of honor comes from serving while gay, I am saying her lack of honor comes from her denying that serving while gay was at that time against the rules. 

IF she were simply morally opposed to the rule, she would now be proud to say she broke the rule b/c she disagreed with it. Instead she simply lies and says the policy never existed in the first place.

If the policy didn't exist, then WHY the need for DADT to begin with?


----------



## Dr.Drock (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I did, I saw one article that might be saying what you are but I'm at work and it blocked it, but that was all I saw, www.dailykos.com/story/2011/.../-The-day-before-DADT-was-law 
There's part of the link but that's all I could see.  If you can do me the favor of going to that and finding it and copying and pasting it I would appreciate it.

I found this from during the Reagan Administration, 1982, "Any member of the military who had participated in homosexual activity or had stated that they were homosexual or bisexual is immediately discharged."  This still only says saying you were gay or having gay sex is worthy of discharge.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Dr.Drock said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Drock said:
> ...



Give this article a read, maybe it will clear things  up a little.

Gays being kicked out of military at steady rate - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



What rule(s) did I break while serving, the Brain?    If you are going to accuse me of dishonoring my uniform, you need to be armed with more than your dislike of me.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Google....Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts

Google...USS Norton Sound

Google...USS Iowa explosion, NIS

Then talk about dishonor and who's the dishonorable ones.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 6, 2011)

I would like for the discussion of gays in the military to be moved to that appropriate thread so that we could resume the topic of this thread.


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I would like for the discussion of gays in the military to be moved to that appropriate thread so that we could resume the topic of this thread.



Sorry I contributed to the derailing of this thread. It just irks me when people who act dishonorably claim they are as honorable as the next person.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I would like for the discussion of gays in the military to be moved to that appropriate thread so that we could resume the topic of this thread.
> ...



It is so easy to call someone dishonorable when you cannot even say what they were dishonorable about.

How many other of your fellow soldiers and sailors have you called dishonorable with nothing to back your accusations?


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I would like for the discussion of gays in the military to be moved to that appropriate thread so that we could resume the topic of this thread.



Have no problem with that as long as I'm allowed to defend my honor from those who can't even say what I'm dishonorable about....I'm sure that he would not want me to call his military service dishonorable for some reason I can't specify or prove either.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 6, 2011)

"no problem with that except I'm not going to do it"

It never ends, does it?


----------



## TheBrain (May 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "no problem with that except I'm not going to do it"
> 
> It never ends, does it?



Lifetime victim, I say we let her wallow her in her own filth and respect the wishes of not further derailing this thread. I started an appropriate thread in the legal forum if you'd like to opine.


----------



## froggy (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > America was founded on Christianity and was blessed richly, but now she continues to fall from her blessed state because she has let the wicked tear out the roots of her start.
> ...



we Indians sure racked up in the past few years in restitution.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 6, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I would like for the discussion of gays in the military to be moved to that appropriate thread so that we could resume the topic of this thread.
> ...



I'm not criticizing as I have been known to get off topic on occasion.  
Just stating I would like to stay on topic here.


----------



## freedombecki (May 6, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



<<<<Gong!>>>> You're wrong.

If you are a Christian as you claim, doesn't your particular church have a library that discusses Christian influence in colonial times.

Pity you don't go there.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

froggy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



Tell us your secret in being able to still be alive at 178 years of age.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I took religion in a private military school in the 60s.
No one disputes Christian influences in our society. 
The society was majority Christian, the founders were primarily Christian and Christianity is a good thing.
That does not translate in OUR GOVERNMENT being founded on religion.
Your claim that John Witherspoon modeled the Congress after his church is absurd.
He never made that claim so how could that be true? Witherspoon was instrumental in formulating James Madison's strong position to NOT have religion intermingled with government. Madison was one ofmany students he had. Witherspoon instructed almost 100 future politicians and judges in our founded country and you claim his influences put religion into our government?
Well, where is God mentioned ANYWHERE in the laws that this nation was founded on and Witherspoon had a hand in writing?
NO WHERE. Try again. 
You sir are the one that does not know your history. I learned it before you were born.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 7, 2011)

It didn't take, gadawg. Your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of everything else.

You *took* religion in the 60s? What's that mean? You took a class on religions or something in grammar school?


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

Got Christian tenets we're founded on?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It didn't take, gadawg. Your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of everything else.
> 
> You *took* religion in the 60s? What's that mean? You took a class on religions or something in grammar school?



Sewanee Military Academy, Sewanne, TN, college prep. That would be a high school.
And guess what is also in Sewanee TN? Sewanee, The University of The South. Look it up Allie. One of the best private universities in America. My father taught there for 4 years. And guess what else is on the mountain there? An Episcopalian Theological Graduate School. Guess what they teach there Allie? And guess where many of my friends went and guess who taught religion at Sewanee Military Academy, one of the best private high school college prep schools in the land then. Because of the many alumni KIA in Nam in the 60s that were ROTC and then officers in Marines and Army and the anti-war sentiment in America they ended the military school in the early 70s. This is the school today:

St. Andrew's-Sewanee School: Home


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It didn't take, gadawg. Your understanding of history is as limited as your understanding of everything else.
> ...



These were where the teachers that taught religion at SMA were from:

Welcome to The School of Theology at Sewanee! - Sewanee :: The University of the South


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

And guess what religion 60% of the Founders were??


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

I know we've been all over the place on this thread and I am as guilty as the next...but let's reset to the OP

"The U.S. is NOT founded upon Christianity."

If you disagree with that statement....what Christianity IS the U.S. founded upon?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation.  It was founded by Christian people who were religious.  This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord,  totalitarian government, special interest, or person.

The purpose of the federal government was to secure and defend those unalienable rights and then allow the people to be free to govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.

The USA was based on a Christian concept.  Not religion or Christianity.


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre has it right. Her statement is based on factual information.
We used to have this taught in our schools in U.S. History class, it needs to be put back in.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation.  It was founded by Christian people who were religious.  This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord,  totalitarian government, special interest, or person.
> 
> The purpose of the federal government was to secure and defend those unalienable rights and then allow the people to be free to govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.
> 
> The USA was *based on a Christian concept*.  Not religion or Christianity.



I agree with you...except I am puzzled by what I highlited....

What exactly is that Christian concept the USA is based on...the concept of natural/unalienable rights is not traced to Christianity.

Allie...you negged me for THIS post?      :rolf:       Yeah, I suppost it's that threatening to you.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 7, 2011)

You keep asking the same questions over and over, and pretending they haven't been answered.

Nobody said the concept originated in Christianity. What has been said is that the US is founded upon Christian precepts; i.e., the founding fathers stated that is where they looked to develop the foundation of the country.

Arguing whether there's really a God or saying "whoa, Christianity isn't the ONLY value system that adheres to those principles" is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation.  It was founded by Christian people who were religious.  This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord,  totalitarian government, special interest, or person.
> ...



It arose out of the Christian convictions of the Founders who gave God and, in many cases, the Christ as the source of the concept.  They were not the first to think it up, but they were the first to make it a foundation for a new structure of government that had never been tried before in the history of the world.

For an excelent history I recommend Defending the Declaration  by Gary T. Amos.






He did some excellent scholarly research to show how a concept of 'unalienable rights of men' were identified and developed by medieval Christian scholars over a period of centuries.  Chapter 4 entitled "Unalienable Rights Endowed by the Creator' is especially good to illustrate why the concept has been embraced not only by Americans but by defenders of liberty everywhere.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 7, 2011)

Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another example of the extreme ignorance of the anti-American, anti-Christian crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.

Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.

Despite the fact that every historian and US history expert confirms it.

If Thomas Jefferson and all the other FF were to pile into a hummer, come to her house, and tell her personally that they had founded the country on Chrsitian tenets, she would still deny it.

Because she doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. Her truth is relative and completely subjective. It means nothing to her.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> ...



Normally you and I are on the same page, but I gently disagree here Allie.  There are those who so desperately want to believe they are right, that they close off any truth that interferes with that.  It isn't an intentional thing.  They just aren't yet strong enough to 'handle the truth' as Colonel Jessup might say.  And some, including myself, hold opinions strongly enough that it requires a lot of evidence to shake our faith in our own convictions.

I don't believe Bodecea doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else.  She(?) is usually 180 degrees opposite my position on most sociopolitical issues, but I doubt is any more stubborn than I am, or you are for that matter , in giving up something believed to be true.

To me, however, being a grown up is being willing to at least look at evidence presented by others before dismissing it out of hand.  And it is also not embracing every new talking point or ideological perspective that crops up on any given day.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

Fox, the "Christian concept" at the time this nation was founded was:
ALL nations had Christian religous influences in their government EXCEPT The United States of America per CONSTITUTION. 
The first Amendment of The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law *RESPECTING* an establishment of religion, or prohbiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now at the time of the Founders guess why did they include AND MAKE IT LAW that our government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohbiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press and the right of people to peacefully assemble?
1. ALL of the European governments established CHRISTIANITY as the national religion in every country by LAW. That was the "Christian concept' of the day. Our nation and government was in no way founded on that. 
2. Prohibiting free speech was what Christian churches did in Europe for centuries. That was the "Christian concept" of the day in Europe when this nation was founded.
3. Pronibiting freedom of the press was also the "Christian concept" norm when this nation was founded all through Europe as the church did not want opposition and freedom of the press.
4. Peacefull assembly was not allowed by the absolute monarchies in Europe as divine right was their calling as they ran their entire societies on the rule that God appointed them rulers over the masses. That was the "Christian concept" of the day.
Our nation was founded by Christian men.
Our nation was primarily Christian.
Christianity is a very good thing.
Religion does not found a nation that won a long fought revolution. LAWS is what we were founded on.
Those laws set us free from Christian influences and domination in every country that our Founders came from.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

A little more history for the uninformed here. You will find that MOST religous scholars, pastors and preachers that understand history and correct history on the Founders know that the Christians and pastors of the day knew that they were not founding a nation based on Christian principles. Christian principles are WHAT YOU TEACH YOUR KIDS, not the business of GOVERNMENT.

One of dozens that are from theological schools nationally. 

Quartz Hill School of Theology


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I fail to see what is christian about the concept of unalienable rights...it's clear a concept that came out of the Enlightenment, that all people are born (whether they believe in a creator or not) with three basic human rights...the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property...and that social contracts are created among people to protect those rights.   There's nothing enherently 'christian' about that concept.....unless there's something I'm missing here.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.
> ...


 
It's still dishonesty, however. Whatever her motivations. Assholes always have the best motivation to be assholes, and so do liars. I understand WHY people do it...but it's still lying and dishonest.

And I'd give her the benefit of the doubt...except she lies about little things, as well. For example, she will deny that she said something that is attributed to her....and when her actual quote is provided, she'll completely ignore it.

That's not just wanting to be right. That's fucking lying. A person who does that is not just being naive when they fudge...they are lying. The two things that she won't respond to is FACT and TRUTH. She'll pick apart a sentence until the end of time...she'll race around the board posting the same lie over and over and over, but when faced with fact she's completely silent and changes the subject.

That's just plain dishonesty.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.



If you have to lie to make your point, Allie....your point is rather weak.   I have never ever said the Dec of Ind isn't a founding document.   HOWEVER, that being said....it is NOT a basis for our government structure.   It was a declaration...an announcement that we were separating from our mother country.   Similar in a way to divorce papers.  But our U.S. of A.'s government is not based on it.   In fact, if you were to actually read the Dec of Ind, there's nothing there on how to set up our government...that was left to the Articles of Confederation...and when those failed, the Constitution.



> BAHAHAHAHAHAHA



Laugh indeed.



> Another example of the extreme ignorance of the* anti-American, anti-Christian *crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.
> 
> Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.
> 
> ...



On what unsubjective basis do you have the right to call me unAmerican and anti-Christian?  Because I don't agree with YOU????


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> ...



I do want to revisit this comment from Allie again.   Whether she meant to or not, she proved that our Founders were very wise in making sure our Country was not founded in such a way as Allie wants to think it was.   Can you imagine what life would be like if people like Allie were in power here and the laws were such that she could determine one's patriotism to our country based on her perception of whether one was a good enough Christian or not....that being based on whether you agreed with her as to the power of christianity within our government?    We'd be right back to what the Europeans struggled with for centuries.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

Nope.  I don't see Allie as Bodecea sees her any more than I see Bodecea as Allie sees her.  I see that you dislike and distrust each other which generally makes any kind of useful dialogue pretty difficult.  

And I accept that you are both being honest in how you see the other.

It is illustrative of the point I was attempting to make but probably didn't make very well.  The fact that we defend our point of view is not what makes us dishonest.  Only defending a point of view once it can be seen as indefensible in light of existing facts and evidence would make a person dishonest.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Such as?   And lets not play that little game you play where you dodge proving your accusation by saying "oh, I've already proved it again and again"


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

Sigh.  I wonder if it would be noticed by anybody if I started a thread on how NOT to derail a thread?


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Sigh.  I wonder if it would be noticed by anybody if I started a thread on how NOT to derail a thread?



I'm trying to stay on the OP topic, Foxfyre....I really am.

I agree with the OP, btw....because I've not seen evidence to the contrary that our country's tenets, principles, what have you can be traces to Christianity principles.


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.


----------



## freedombecki (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So you were getting much-needed discipline when I was raising my children according to the scriptures?

And what you said I said is not at all what I said.

However, I promise you I will vote for you if you ever decide to vie for the seat of village idiot.

You're a certain shoo-in.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property.    (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation.  It was founded by Christian people who were religious.  This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord,  totalitarian government, special interest, or person.
> ...



You're one stupid, useless troll. Do you understand that God given rights are by definition rights given by a God? Do you further understand that the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were in fact Christians tells us that it's probably a pretty good bet that it is the Christian God those fathers were talking about when they talk about God, and not some other god?

An even better question is do you even have any interest in having a real conversation about anything or you merely here to scream that you're fucking right about everything? Because you have failed miserably in this thread on several counts and haven't acknowledged a single one of those errors.

By the way stupid, Jefferson NEVER indicated that he believed ANYONE was entitled to own property. Certainly he believed that everyone was entitled to have the ABILITY to own property, but that is entirely different than what you said.


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Your missing the point, our government can take away our property for the good of the whole, like highways roads  but you must be paid fairly for it. (Amendment V)
It has never been property it has always been pursuit of happiness
Pursuit of Happenss means your own little piece of heaven here on earth. Meaning here in America.
In order the have a peacful society you must have values and good standing character (self discipline) where do you think that teaching comes from?


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Here you go again.....I guess when you've got no real argument, you just come on rude and insulting.   You certainly prove that axiom.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I know that the government can take away property under eminent domain.  (From the Constitution....NOT the Dec of Ind)....what I was talking about was how Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" to avoid the perception that the war was all about property...particularly the property of many of the land rich and money rich men in the Constitutional Congress.   They had to sell the revolution to everyone...not just the landed gentry.   Jefferson knew this.


> *In order the have a peacful society you must have values and good standing character (self discipline) where do you think that teaching comes from?*



Do you think that ONLY comes from Christianity?   Be careful...by saying that you might be inferring that a society is not peaceful without Christianity and in order to have values and a good standing character, one has to be a Christian.   Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights.  Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

No I'm saying that in order to have freedom from government you need to have a society that can govern themselves.If you don't have that then a Government must control.

By "property," Locke meant MORE than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included A RIGHT TO PERSONAL WELL BEING. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe FREEDOM OF OPPORTUNITY as well as the duty to help those in want. (This is taught in college U. S. History classes)

I don't know what you were reading about Jefferson thinking it was too materialistic sounding but what ever it was you read it is not true.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



We will have to agree to disagree as to WHY Jefferson changed that part of Locke's theory.   I know that he was trying to sell the Dec of Ind to the masses and many of those who were going to pick up arms and fight for independence were not property owners.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well I am informed by what Locke wrote and what Jefferson wrote.   None of this was group think nor did all march in lockstep, but the concepts were carefully and thoroughly debated over a decade and a half before being written first into the Declaration which provided the substance of the principles behind the Constitution.  John Locke died about four decades before Jefferson was born, and well before our Founding Fathers were developing a plan to secede from England and form their own government.  Had Locke known about that, he certainly would have addressed it, but it was Locke's philosophical concepts of natural rights and rejection of the right of kings that helped instruct Jefferson's own convictions about that.  How to apply that to a system of government was Jefferson & Co.'s concept and not John Locke's.


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




The Declaration of Independence was written by the 2nd continental congress and they were not selling it to anybody. They declared freedom from the English Crown and it was voted on unanimously. Towards the end of that document is says;

We,therefore,the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World (meanig God)
It was just like any of things that congress does to this very day, except we have a problem with things passing unanimously with both parties now a days.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 7, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes, ability to vote themselves benefits from the people's treasury and to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by using the people's money to dispense favors has created a leadership of opportunists instead of people like the visionary public servants that made up that first Constitutional congress.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to get back to those visionary concepts of self governance and unalienable rights?   And, if they were not in agreement, wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Congress would take a decade to research, explore, discuss, and debate the issues and get it right before imposing something new and far reaching onto the American people?


----------



## peach174 (May 7, 2011)

I totally agree with you Foxfyre. It would be wonderful.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually they were....the American people.   At that point, the rebellion was contained MOSTLY in the North and less than one third of Americans were sold on fighting the British for their rights....one third was actively HELPING the British and about one third to one half needed to be convinced.   That's why the Dec of Ind was sent out by horse as fast as possible all over the place including the Continental Army where Washington had it read outloud to the troops.

The Dec of Independence was writing to convince.   You can see it by just reading it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Call me whatever you like.
You have proven you have no facts or knowledge in this matter. All you have is name calling. 
I provide facts. You provide nothing.


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Here you go proving yourself wrong again. Don't you EVER tire of being wrong? Jefferson wasn't trying to convince the poor of anything. The people who were actually voting on the DoI were in fact mostly landowners, there was no need to appease anyone else, because they essentially had no voice.

Voting in Early America : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

I wish we'd go back to the days of limiting who we let vote. 

Oh, here's another fact for you, a high majority of folks who fought for our independence were in fact slaves or indentured servants. Again, they had no say in anything. They fought to pay off a debt. 

You're just not very smart, stop trying to act like you are.


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You still haven't answered my question I asked of you pages ago. Do you recognize that a country founded on religious principles is NOT the same thing as a theocracy?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



"paid fairly for it" LOL.
Brother, believe me, the government NEVER offers a fair price when they condemn or use eminent domain to seize property. 
My neighbor is an atheist. He is the most Christlike person I know.
Values and good standing character have nothing to do with religion.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



He most certainly wrote the Dec as a persuasive argument for those, mostly poor farmers, to take up arms for the new country.

And your comment about indentured servants...slaves....I look forward to your evidence.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



You remind me of the people that claim corporations do not pay enough taxes. I point out to them that corporations NEVER pay taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes.
The government has NO religous principles. PEOPLE have religous principles.
The nation was founded starting a NEW GOVERNMENT. A government that is founded on religion is a theocracy. Our nation was founded on THE LAW. The US Constitution was not founded on Christian principles. PEOPLE here have Christian principles.
The fact that our government was not founded on Christian principles HAS NOTHING to do with the FACT that we are a primarily a Christian believing nation.


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And what do you think those laws are based on? For the most part our legal system is based on English common law, which oh that's right comes from a Christian theocracy.

I just don't see how you can't see that it's obvious that a group of people who are mostly Christians would draw from that Christianity when creating the documents which created this country.

When in the DoI Jefferson wrote of God, do you think he meant anything but the Christian God?

We were absolutely founded on Christian principles, but admitting that is so scares the hell out of some people. For some reason.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 7, 2011)

What difference does it make that it was written to persuade? Most writers write to persuade. That's the purpose of writing.

It doesn't mean they were lying when they said they were founding the country on Christian principle, however.


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What difference does it make that it was written to persuade? Most writers write to persuade. That's the purpose of writing.
> 
> It doesn't mean they were lying when they said they were founding the country on Christian principle, however.



She's wrong again, as usual, the DoI wasn't written to persuade anyone. By the time it was written, the founders KNEW it was a shoo in; AND only land owners got a vote anyway.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



The DOI is not the a legal document.
You know that. End of that argument.
We are not governed by the DOI
You know that. End of that argument.
"No religous test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office *OR PUBLIC TRUST* UNDER THE UNITED STATES."
You now know that as you have been ignoring that. End of that argument.
No religous test means we are not a nation founded on Christianity. If we were they would have required one. And oh, they did try. But that was voted down. They lost. We won. 
The govenment was not founded and, as evidence by the no religous test clause, THEY DIDN'T WANT the nation founded on Christian principles.
Don't blame me, blame the Founders. They wrote it, not me.


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The DoI is not a legal document?

Eh, I've given you chance after chance, you're no more honest than Bodecia . I'm done debating with you.


----------



## freedombecki (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You drew first blood, sir, and that is precisely why you omitted your first post to me, laden with insults of every kind, and I quote you: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gadawg73 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by freedombecki View Post

Congress is modeled after the Presbyterian (Christian) system of representation. The only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was a Presbyterian (Christian) minister.

Congress itself is the consequence of Christianity.

God bless the USA.

*Anyone that believes that is beyond stupid.*

You initiated the name-calling, and you tried to hide it and play like you didn't. You also another Alynski tactic: claim the person is worthless and pretend the other person is "cuckoo".

Boring, boring, boring.


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > What difference does it make that it was written to persuade? Most writers write to persuade. That's the purpose of writing.
> ...



First of all..the Declaration of Independence was most certainly written to persuade the American people....you don't think it was written to persuade the English King, do you?
Have you ever read the entire thing?  The biggest part is the 2nd part...listing all the wrongs done to us...the very core of a persuasive essay.

Second...it was not a shoo in...many of the colonies were still thinking to fight as Englishmen just to regain rights as Englishmen, NOT to become completely independent.  The concept of independence was not there at Lexington and Concord...it took a while  (and Common Sense) 

Finally, if only landowners get to vote, they are the only ones with a stake in a new country...why should anyone else get involved?   That is what Jefferson was trying to address.


Still waiting for your evidence about slaves and indentured servants.


----------



## Spoonman (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



That is correct...it is a Founding document...but it is NOT a legal document.   What law does it establish?   It is a DECLARATION....not a law, not a constitution, not an amendment.

We are not GOVERNED by the Dec of Ind.   If we were...why write the Articles of Confederation?

I'm afraid you are one of those people who simply don't know what the Dec of Ind was all about...and what it was NOT about.


----------



## froggy (May 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ever gamble in one of our casinos?


----------



## bodecea (May 7, 2011)

froggy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...


----------



## TheBrain (May 7, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




You just can't prove how stupid you are often enough, can you?

The DoI absolutely was not written to persuade ANYONE of anything. It was instead written to DECLARE that the decision was made.  PERIOD

Again, read a damned history book, or just the link I provided. In the beginning of our nation ONLY white male landowners voted. There is a reason why the right to vote is not included in the Bill of Rights.

Now , for the final time. You are beneath contempt as a person, and as a debater. You are dishonest in EVERY WAY. I will have nothing to do with debating you further in this thread nor any other. And just to be clear , my contempt for you has NOTHING to do with you being gay. I have known gay people before who are honest, so I realize that your dishonesty is not a symptom of you being gay.

Of course you will respond by saying you don't care what I , or anyone else thinks about you, but if that were true, you wouldn't feel compelled to lie continuously to try to make yourself appear smarter than you are, when the truth is you're too stupid to even admit to an error even once in awhile.

I feel sorry for ANYONE who is being influenced by you in anyway; be it on here or in real life. You're pathetic.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I always appreciate the opportunity to showcase YOUR behavior.   

Especially when you say for the.....3rd?   4th? time that you will no longer be discussing this with me?

Seems to me, that you are trying very hard to convince yourself of.....something....I'm not sure what....but your post sure isn't full of discussion points.

So....see you tomorrow.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

The Declaration of Independence as a persuasive essay:

Persuasive Elements in The Declaration of Independence Essay

The Declaration of Independence: an analysis of the three persuasive appeals

The Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson - Classic Essays and Arguments - Deductive Argument

Purpose of the Declaration of Independence

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some excellent stuff on what it really was all about.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What difference does it make that it was written to persuade? Most writers write to persuade. That's the purpose of writing.
> 
> It doesn't mean they were lying when they said they were founding the country on Christian principle, however.



The proof is in the pudding tho, Allie.  They can SAY they are founding the country on Christian principle(s) all they want....where are those christian principles in our laws?  In our Constitution, in our court decisions (and that Supreme Court case you pulled out before, the comments you quote were NOT in the decision)

People can SAY all they want.   Look at The Brain.  He's already said 3 or 4 times that he is no longer going to debate me...and then he comes back and debates me...or at least name-calls and insults. (if you can call that debating)  Action speaks a lot louder than words....pretty much everywhere and in everytime.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

So who do you think the overwhelmingly majority was at the founding of this nation?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

froggy said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > froggy said:
> ...



No. 
Horse track and poker. Casinos are for suckers.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> So who do you think the overwhelmingly majority was at the founding of this nation?



Definitely different variations of Christian....no one here has denied that.   But did they pour their Christianity into the Laws and Constitution of this country or did they keep their religions out of the laws and Constitution?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

No, because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. Nobody claimed we were.

The founding fathers stated the principles they were founding the country, and they said they pulled those principles from the bible.

We have no choice but to believe them. Since we can't read minds of people long dead, we get to take them at their many and oft-repeated words.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. Nobody claimed we were.
> 
> The founding fathers stated the principles they were founding the country, and they said they pulled those principles from the bible.
> 
> *We have no choice but to believe them*. Since we can't read minds of people long dead, we get to take them at their many and oft-repeated words.



Why?   Don't actions speak louder than words?   Doesn't the WRITTEN Constitution and WRITTEN and ENFORCED laws speak louder than words?

Point out the Christian tenets in our Constitution.....you know, the Supreme Law of the Land.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. Nobody claimed we were.
> 
> The founding fathers stated the principles they were founding the country, and they said they pulled those principles from the bible.
> 
> We have no choice but to believe them. Since we can't read minds of people long dead, we get to take them at their many and oft-repeated words.



"We have no choice but to believe them"

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion"
Unanimously approved by the Senate and Congress 1796 and proudly offered by John Adams to the nation in 1797. George Washington appointed the man to negotiate this treaty. Both houses were full of Founders when this was read aloud and passed with NO no votes. 
Glad that you have changed your mind Allie. You have no choice to but to believe them.
Well done!


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. Nobody claimed we were.
> ...



The famous line you quoted is not in the Constitution nor in any of the Founder Fathers' writings, letters, or papers, however.  It is a clause (Article 11?) in a treaty with Tripoli and the wording was to reassure that nation that American Christianity would not be a hindrance or issue due to their being a Muslim nation.  I don't remember the exact date but do know it was a number of years after our Constitution was ratified.  1797 comes to mind.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You obviously know nothing about the law and our system of government.
Words mean words. Spin it all you want but I quote verbatim. 
Treaties mean what they say. Where was the opposition to this?
The no religous test further illustrates that the Founders wanted no religous influences in government.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, because WE AREN'T A THEOCRACY. Nobody claimed we were.
> ...


 
There is no need to attribute your own bias to the foundation of the country when the founding fathers stated their intent. You can't just come along and say, "I don't believe they were good Christians, so therefore it wasn't founded on Christianity". Your own opinion has nothing to do with this particular argument. You can't make the argument on your interpretation when they stated plainly what they were doing.

Not only that, how do you dismiss the truly great scholars down through the years who have agreed, en masse, that the country was built upon a Christian foundation? Who are you that we should listen to you, and not Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Obama, the supreme court, etc?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

It comes down to your own ignorance, and your inability or lack of desire to learn. I keep coming back to this, and I think it is fundamental in your inability to grasp the information....you don't know what the word "found" means. You are confusing it with law, with theocracy. And apparently you don't understand what principle or tenets mean, either, since you think they are synonomous with personal faith and theocracy as well.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Treaties are law after approved by Congress and signed by the President.   The Treaty of Tripoly was unanimously approved by Congress and signed by President John Adams.   Do you think they would have allowed that statement in if they founded our country on Christian tenets?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Words mean words.

So you accept that the founding fathers founded the country on Christian principles. Since they all stated that they did.

Thank you.

And religious influences are all throughout our FF governmental structure. You, like Bod, are incapable of understanding the nuance of the word "found" or "influence" and confuse it with "law" and "theocracy".


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It comes down to your own ignorance, and your inability or lack of desire to learn. I keep coming back to this, and I think it is fundamental in your inability to grasp the information....*you don't know what the word "found" means*. You are confusing it with law, with theocracy. And apparently you don't understand what principle or tenets mean, either, since you think they are synonomous with personal faith and theocracy as well.



Then give us YOUR definition of the word.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Show us how they put those Christian Principles into our Constitution.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

No, why would I prove something I never claimed, and which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT?????

Are you fucking retarded or what? Because at this point it looks like it.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, why would I prove something I never claimed, and which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT?????
> 
> Are you fucking retarded or what? Because at this point it looks like it.



Give us your definition of the word "founded", Allie.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Sir, for a number of years the Founders conducted Christian worship services IN THE CHAMBERS of CONGRESS!!!   They believed this legal since attendance at the services was purely voluntary.  Almost to a man, they emphasized that our system of government and our Constitution would not stand except in the care of a religious and moral people.

That you cannot differentiate between that and a subsequent line in a treaty with a Muslim nation says far more about your lack of understanding of law and system of government than mine.

George Washington:  &#8220;What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.&#8221; 

George Washington:  &#8220;It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.&#8221; 

George Washington:  "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.&#8221; 

George Washington:  &#8220;Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.&#8221;  (Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789)


George Washington:  &#8220;True religion affords to government its surest support.&#8221;

&#8220;I &#8230; [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.&#8221; - Samuel Adams 

Samuel Adams:  &#8220;We have this day [Fourth of July] restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come.&#8221;

Samuel Adams:  &#8220;The United States in Congress assembled &#8230; recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States &#8230; a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.&#8221; 

- United States Congress 1782

&#8220;Congress passed this resolution: &#8220;The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.&#8221;   - United States Congress 1782 

&#8220;By Law the United States Congress adds to US coinage:&#8221;  &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221;- United States Congress 1864

John Adams:  &#8220;The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.&#8221;  

John Adams:  "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221; 

John Adams:  &#8220;The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.&#8221; 

John Adams:  &#8220;Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.&#8221; 

John Adams:  "[The Fourth of July] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.&#8221;

John Adams:  &#8220;As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.&#8221; 

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


John Jay, First Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:  "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty &#8211; as well as privilege and interest &#8211; of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." 


Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence:  &#8220;The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.&#8221; 

John Witherspoon, Continental Congress:  &#8220;He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.&#8221; 

John Dickinson, signer Constitution of the USA, Continental Congress:  &#8220;The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source &#8212; from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.&#8221;

Benjamin Franklin:  &#8220;Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.&#8221;

Thomas Jefferson, President:  "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

James Madison:  "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.&#8221;

James Madison:  &#8220;Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government&#8221;


Noah Webster:  "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed &#8230; No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." 

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:  &#8220;I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law &#8230; There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.&#8221; 

&#8220;And this be our motto, &#8216;In God is our trust&#8217;&#8221; - USA National Anthem, Third Verse 

United States Supreme Court:  &#8220;This is a Christian nation&#8221; - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892 
&#8220;Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian&#8230;This is a Christian nation&#8221;


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Hey, but if it's not in the Constitution, they must have just been saying it to say it.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but if it's not in the Constitution, they must have just been saying it to say it.



It isn't in the Constitution because they intended that nobody's version of Christianity be authorized to infringe on the unalienable right to believe what one wanted to believe including rejection of Christianity or religion if that is what they wanted.   That did not in the least change their conviction that our nation would prosper and remain free only in the hands of moral and religious Christians.

There is a world of difference between 'being founded on the Christian religion" which it wasn't and being founded on Christian principles, which it was.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

I know that. You know that. The FF knew that. Every historian and scholar that has ever studied the US knows that.

But gadawg and Bod know BETTER.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Hey, but if it's not in the Constitution, they must have just been saying it to say it.



Where is it in the Preamble?   In Articles I-VII?  In the first 10 Amendments?


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I know that. You know that. The FF knew that. Every historian and scholar that has ever studied the US knows that.
> 
> But gadawg and Bod know BETTER.



You mean that all historians and scholars say our nation was founded on Christian Principles?


Of course, feel free to answer that question right after you give us your definition of "founded".


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, but if it's not in the Constitution, they must have just been saying it to say it.
> ...



It isn't in the Constitution because this is a secular nation with a secular government.  Our founders were the first to codify that Christianity would take NO PART in government.  Privately, knock yourself out.   Governmentally?   NO.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Thank you for admitting we are founded upon Christian principle.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Thank you for admitting we are founded upon Christian principle.



Where did I do that?   Right after you defined "founded" for us?


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

What about the 1st continental congress opening prayer?

      Reverend Jacob Duché
      Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
      September 7, 1774, 9 o&#8217;clock a.m.

      "O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of
      kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold
      all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme
      and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and
      Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on
      these our American States, who have fled to Thee from
      the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy
      gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent
      only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the
      righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up
      for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst
      give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy
      nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in
      the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel
      adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their
      Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of
      own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain
      them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved
      hands in the day of battle!


      "Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the
      councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle
      things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene
      of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and
      peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice,
      religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people.
      Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their
      minds; shower down on them and the millions they here
      represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest
      expedient for them in this world and crown them with
      everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in
      the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son
      and our Savior.

      "Amen."

And the painting of congress kneling in prayer?



seems to me that this is Christianity and continues to this day with opening prayer before start of each day in congress


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> What about the 1st continental congress opening prayer?
> 
> Reverend Jacob Duché
> Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
> ...



That's very nice...but is it codified in law?   Or is that men wanting to pray...while being wise enough to NOT put it into our Country's Framework?

(BTW...1st Continential Congress?   STILL part of England at that time....not the U.S. yet)


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
Idiot. The argument, for the 500th time, isn't that Christianity takes a part in government. 

The argument (it's not even an argument, as it's an accepted, proven fact) is that the government was founded upon Christian principle.

Remember...

found_verb_ 
*Definition of FOUND*

transitive verb
1
*:* to take the first steps in building 

2
*:* to set or ground on something solid *:* base 

3
*:* to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > What about the 1st continental congress opening prayer?
> ...


 
Do you see the word "law" in the definition of FOUND, you brain dead moron?


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > What about the 1st continental congress opening prayer?
> ...



This brings up an interesting point.  Do you think the Congress should start with a prayer?   If so, what kind of prayer?  Should it be codified by law?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

See this is what is patently dishonest about the left.

She knows very well that law has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument, and she is perfectly aware that she cannot intelligently claim that our country isn't founded on Christian principle.

So what she does, and has done from the beginning, is to PRETEND (read: Lie) that the assertion is something other than what it is....she is pretending that the argument is not whether or not the US was founded upon Christian principle, as she knows it was...she pretends instead that the question is whether or not his is a theocracy.

Which of COURSE it isn't. Nobody said it was a theocracy, that would be idiotic. Obviously, we aren't a theocracy, which is why that argument never came up.

But Bod is pretending that it did, because she is too dishonest to address her own stupidity in claiming we aren't founded upon Christian principle.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



What definition of "found" is that, Allie?   The one I've asked you for and you have yet to define for us?   That one?


And I appreciate you showcasing just how well you can debate the topic by calling rude names.   THAT certainly wins debates....


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


 

Why in God's name are you asking yourself a question?


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




Your the one who said our founders were the 1st that Christianity would take no part in government, they did and they still do.
Do you think this stopped when we won the revolutionary war no it did not.
and you dropped that part where I said that congress has opening prayer everyday before they start business. It has been that way from the beginning to this very day.
Do you every watch C-Span? They open with prayer every day.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
What the fuck are you talking about, you lying twat? I've posted the definition of found TWO TIMES. Are you saying I'm supposed to find a DIFFERENT definition, one that meets your own weird understanding?

What an idiot. This debate ceased to be a debate the minute you joined, becasue there is no argument. It has been established and is recognized on a global scale, that the US was founded upon christian principle. All that we're debating now is whether or not you lie intentionally, or accidentally by virtue of your intense stupidity.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> See this is what is patently dishonest about the left.
> 
> She knows very well that law has nothing whatsoever to do with this argument, and she is perfectly aware that she cannot intelligently claim that our country isn't founded on Christian principle.
> 
> ...




Where is your definition of "Found", Allie?


And who here said we were a theocracy, Allie?

Where did I pretend that someone said we were a theocracy, Allie?


When will you stop making up stuff and actually prove your accusations, Allie?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Oh. My. God.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
That from this page, you lying pos.

So what was the first step our FF took to establish a new country, Bod? Perhaps if we reduce it down to first grade level, you'll get it.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."

I do wonder what they fear would happen to them if they embraced the truth of what our Founders were about even if they do not personally accept those concepts.  They can't even seem to appreciate that it was BECAUSE the Founders saw unalienable rights in the their faith and implemented them in the Declaration and Constitution that our contrarian friends have the right to disagree that such exists.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Allie, you are wasting your time, as I'm sure you are aware . I can already tell that Bode is one of those people who come to message boards to vent because they are pissed off about their own lives. She has No interest in honest debate, she just wishes to lie, ans stir up shit. Notice she completely ignores EVERY quote from the founding fathers in which they explicitly say we were founded on Christian principles. Instead clinging to a clause in a treaty which directly contradicts the words of the very President who signed it.

She is a stupid, and a liar. I don't understand the idea of lying about historical facts to win a debate on a message board. 

Watch her next lie will be to come on here and say that I promised not to talk about her anymore, when clearly all I said was that I was no longer going to debate with her. I said nothing about further insults.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want, but when you knowingly base your opinion on lies, then your opinion is a lie; and Bode is the biggest liar I've ever met. You should go up to the thread in the law forum, it's quite interesting.

But you're wasting your time here. Bode is a piece of shit unworthy of debate.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."
> 
> I do wonder what they fear would happen to them if they embraced the* truth of what our Founders were about *even if they do not personally accept those concepts.  They can't even seem to appreciate that it was BECAUSE the Founders saw unalienable rights in the their faith and implemented them in the Declaration and Constitution that our contrarian friends have the right to disagree that such exists.



The Truth of what our Founders were about is that they were for the most part Christian men who had seen what happens when Religion rules the State and when the State rules Religion and they set out to FIX that.   They created the first written Constitutional government that codified freedom of religion and kept ANY religion out of governmental law.  No one had ever done that before.  That is the awesomeness of it....and to say they created our government based on ONE religion's tenets is denying the awesomeness of what they did.  What they DID.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."
> 
> I do wonder what they fear would happen to them if they embraced the truth of what our Founders were about even if they do not personally accept those concepts.  They can't even seem to appreciate that it was BECAUSE the Founders saw unalienable rights in the their faith and implemented them in the Declaration and Constitution that our contrarian friends have the right to disagree that such exists.



That's what the problem is ma'am. They have convinced themselves that Christians are the enemy. So if they now admitted that Christian tenets are what gave them the very rights they abuse to trash Christians, they would have to acknowledge their hypocrisy, and that isn't going to happen.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Allie, you are wasting your time, as I'm sure you are aware . I can already tell that Bode is one of those people who come to message boards to vent because they are pissed off about their own lives. She has No interest in honest debate, she just wishes to lie, ans stir up shit. Notice she completely ignores EVERY quote from the founding fathers in which they explicitly say we were founded on Christian principles. Instead clinging to a clause in a treaty which directly contradicts the words of the very President who signed it.
> 
> She is a stupid, and a liar. I don't understand the idea of lying about historical facts to win a debate on a message board.
> 
> ...



See?   I told you last nite I'd see you tomorrow....and here you are.   Chock full of insults.    Mad debating skills, we can all see.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."
> ...



What an incredible load of dingos' kidneys that comment is.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."
> ...



The only thing regarding religion they concerned themselves with in the law was to ensure that the government would not be given any say in what person's believed in matters of religion/faith/church/spirituality and would not be able to either reward nor punish people for what they believed.   That in turn required that the Church would not be given authority in government.

You and Gadawg seem almost desperate to believe that meant there are no Christian concepts contained in the wording and structure that the Founders gave us in the Declaration and the Constitution.   And you keep insisting on that despite reams of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Allie, you are wasting your time, as I'm sure you are aware . I can already tell that Bode is one of those people who come to message boards to vent because they are pissed off about their own lives. She has No interest in honest debate, she just wishes to lie, ans stir up shit. Notice she completely ignores EVERY quote from the founding fathers in which they explicitly say we were founded on Christian principles. Instead clinging to a clause in a treaty which directly contradicts the words of the very President who signed it.
> ...



LOL look the moron did EXACTLY what I said she would do.

Hey Allie, you want to blow the idiots mind?

Life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hmm, that sure sounds like free will to me. Now where have I read about free will before............. Wait a minute, I know............


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

There's no mind to blow.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

The House and Senate open with prayer everyday

The official clergy of Congress are the two chaplains&#8212;one in the House, the other in the
Senate. They are among the elected officers of their respective houses. At the beginning of
each Congress, the House chaplain is elected for a two-year term. The Senate chaplain
does not have to be reelected at the beginning of a new Congress. This report is one of a series on
the legislative process.
They open with prayer everyday before the house and senate conduct their business.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> There's no mind to blow.





True. I really only put that out there in case a person who actually wishes to debate comes along. Bode obviously isn't that person.

I do think it's funny that I wrote in my post watch her come back and claim I said something I did not say and not 2 minutes later, she came back and did exactly that. 

At this point in my mind I have evidence to suggest that every thing I have ever read that she has claimed is a lie. I don't think she is capable of telling the truth.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What you said there is EXTREMELY True and I applaud you for saying it so clearly.

Now...not to bust your bubble...what is the Christian principle in that?


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The House and Senate open with prayer everyday
> 
> The official clergy of Congress are the two chaplainsone in the House, the other in the
> Senate. They are among the elected officers of their respective houses. At the beginning of
> ...



So to does the SCOTUS open every session with a prayer to God.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> There's no mind to blow.



Have you provided your definition of "found" yet?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Multiple times.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

*foundverb 
Definition of FOUND*

*transitive verb*
*1*
*: to take the first steps in building *

*2*
*: to set or ground on something solid : **base*

*3*
*: to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance*


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The House and Senate open with prayer everyday
> ...



Are they required to by law?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Where is "law" in the definition of "found"?


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Yes, they are elected officials


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

She doesn't get it, because she doesn't want to get it. 

I would hate to go through life so angry, and so willfully ignorant.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

It's just plain dishonesty.

No need to attribute it to anything else. She's a liar.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

And a baldfaced one at that.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well you didn't seem to get it the first ten or twelve time I've explained it, but once more and then I give up:

The principle is to recognize, protect, and defend the unalienable rights of each person.  In order to do that, there must be restraints on religion as well as every other aspect of government so that an authoritarian church or any other ideology cannot take away a person's unalienable rights.

The principle of unalienable rights arises out of Christian faith and was believed by the Founders to come from God.  It did not arise out of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, or any other religion.  It was uniquely a Christian concept of what government should be.

The Atheists, radical left, and extremists all should be giving thanks to visionary *Christians* who made it possible for people to be Atheist, wingnuts, and extreme with impunity.  We are the first nation in the world to recognize protection of unalienable rights as the primary function o government and to implement it.

Now, if you don't understand that, there's nothing I will likely say to convince you.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



She will NEVER be convinced, because she doesn't want to be. She is not here to learn. Indeed , I don't think she can learn. She is here to berate, belittle, and lie.

She truly is a worthless person.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

They created the first written Constitutional government that codified freedom of religion and kept ANY religion out of governmental law.
You have it backwards bodecea
Our Governmental law was founded on religion
Laws being;
Murder - thou shalt not kill
Under oath of the courts -thou shall not bear false witness -lie
Steal- thou shall not steal
Just a few off the top of my head.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *foundverb
> Definition of FOUND*



Finally





> *transitive verb*
> *1*
> *: to take the first steps in building *



What in the first steps of building our nation were Christian principles?





> *2*
> *: to set or ground on something solid : **base*



What christian principles are set in the ground in our Nation's government?





> *3*
> *: to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance*





What Christian principle(s) were established as an institution(s) with provisions for future maintenance by our nation?


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> They created the first written Constitutional government that codified freedom of religion and kept ANY religion out of governmental law.
> You have it backwards bodecea
> Our Governmental law was founded on religion
> Laws being;
> ...



You're wasting your time with dishonest scum.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> They created the first written Constitutional government that codified freedom of religion and kept ANY religion out of governmental law.
> You have it backwards bodecea
> Our Governmental law was founded on religion



No, it was founded to avoid any contact with religion.




> Laws being;
> Murder - thou shalt not kill
> Under oath of the courts -thou shall not bear false witness -lie
> Steal- thou shall not steal
> Just a few off the top of my head.



And those are found in ANY society and is not limited to Christian or even religious societies.

Surely you don't think that our Nation had murder laws ONLY because it's a christian thing?


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > They created the first written Constitutional government that codified freedom of religion and kept ANY religion out of governmental law.
> ...



Hi, TheBrain.   Glad to see you back again....even tho you said last nite you weren't coming back...for the 3rd or 4th time.

Now...what were you saying about "dishonest scum"?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 8, 2011)

I give up.   When a plethora of credible and verifiable rebuttal to a mantra has been provided but it is ignored while the same wrong mantra, with no supporting evidence, is repeated again and again, the only logical conclusion is a)  the person is being intentionally dishonest;  b)  the person is an idiot;   c)  the person is uneducable; d) the rest of us are piss poor teachers.

I'm going with "C" on this one and I blame liberal brainwashing.  Or Obama.  Or Bush.  Or potty training.  Or something.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > *foundverb *
> ...


 Already established repeatedly.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing quite so pathetic as one who strains at gnats to avoid acknowledging the truth in the obvious.  The phenomenon is so prevalent among the radical left and the radically anti-religious that I think it must be what Michael Savage meant when he coined the phrase:  "liberalism is a mental disorder."
> ...



 I don't remenber any Jesus is Lord sayings in the Constitution.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Who said there were?


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I give up.   When a plethora of credible and verifiable rebuttal to a mantra has been provided but it is ignored while the same wrong mantra, with no supporting evidence, is repeated again and again, the only logical conclusion is a)  the person is being intentionally dishonest;  b)  the person is an idiot;   c)  the person is uneducable; d) the rest of us are piss poor teachers.
> 
> I'm going with "C" on this one and I blame liberal brainwashing.  Or Obama.  Or Bush.  Or potty training.  Or something.



The correct answer is A,B, and C in this case. She's a dishonest, stupid, and unwilling to learn.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I give up.   When a plethora of credible and verifiable rebuttal to a mantra has been provided but it is ignored while the same wrong mantra, with no supporting evidence, is repeated again and again, the only logical conclusion is a)  the person is being intentionally dishonest;  b)  the person is an idiot;   c)  the person is uneducable; d) the rest of us are piss poor teachers.
> 
> I'm going with "C" on this one and I blame liberal brainwashing.  Or Obama.  Or Bush.  Or potty training.  Or something.



We have about 50 years or so of liberal lies to combat with the truth.
Many blacks still believe that Martin Luther King was a Democrat when in fact he was a Republican.
But when you give them the facts on how Southern Democrats made the laws on segregation, and that is why MLK was a republican, even they start to get it, and see that they have been lied to by liberals.
For poor bodecea there seems to be no hope at all. very sad.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

It's not sad at all. She has chosen to lie, and as such, earns the disdain she is afforded.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It's not sad at all. She has chosen to lie, and as such, earns the disdain she is afforded.



This is rich!     I applaud you guys for being able to go on and on about stuff with no proof whatsoever and pat each other on the back for it.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



There isn't.   There's no legal content whatsoever to their assertion that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles.   They know it, we know it....so they go to Plan B....attack the messenger...rather than debate the message.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> It's not sad at all. She has chosen to lie, and as such, earns the disdain she is afforded.



I agree. I save my pity for those who deserve it. This angry lesbian does NOT deserve it. She deserves disdain for her actions. She's a pathetic, dishonorable, lying, scumbag troll. I don't even care what she believes in as far as political positions.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It's not sad at all. She has chosen to lie, and as such, earns the disdain she is afforded.
> ...





Way to debate, folks.   

Those are some powerful arguments right there.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2011)

I suggest that you take a Local college class on U.S. History bodecea.
And stop readiing the liberal blogs or books or whatever you have been reading.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I guess you missed my post from a few days ago, where I CLEARLY said I am done trying to debate with you, and instead will just make fun of your dumb ass. 

If you had given me ANY indication that you were capable of honest debate I would not have said so. But you are a piece of shit, incapable of adult debate. Suitable only for ridicule.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I suggest that you take a Local college class on U.S. History bodecea.
> And stop readiing the liberal blogs or books or whatever you have been reading.



What good would it do? She'd only see what she wanted to see.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
the arguments were already made, and the premise confirmed. You are the one who continues to ask for verification that has already been provided. You did it today, when you lied and said the definition of *found* had not been provided. It was provided in this thread, and it was provided again today. And you STILL claimed it hadn't been provided.

That's a lie. You're a liar. The debate was over ages ago. Now we're just waiting for you to start lying about something else.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I suggest that you take a Local college class on U.S. History bodecea.
> And stop readiing the liberal blogs or books or whatever you have been reading.



Well, considering I majored in American History in College and have spent a great deal of time reading Historical books (they are like potato chips to me...can't stop with just one) and my idea of a dream vacation is to visit battlefields or old missions, etc.   that would be a step down for me.

But, please feel free to show me what aspects of what I have said are incorrect.  I have no problem debating this on its merits with you.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

And Bod, do you notice that none of the big hitting left wingers are supporting you? If you don't, you should.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest that you take a Local college class on U.S. History bodecea.
> ...


 
Already been done. You lost, and you're an idiot. Your continued carping about liking to read history books means nothing, since you dismiss historical documents and the confirmation of the courts, historians and scholars who affirm the country was built upon Christian tenets.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Well, if you are waiting for her next lie, you will not have to wait any longer than her next post.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

I have to wonder about the intelligence of somebody who chooses to lie about things that are so easy to disprove, tho.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And Bod, do you notice that none of the big hitting left wingers are supporting you? If you don't, you should.



I'm a big girl...are you saying I need help?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

I'm saying that nobody will help you because what you claim is insupportable, and your methods are crap.

And if you're a history major, then I'm a ballerina.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm saying that nobody will help you because what you claim is insupportable, and your methods are crap.
> 
> And if you're a history major, then I'm a ballerina.



She's had just enough college history to be dangerous. I GUARANTEE you that.

My bet is that she is in fact a college dropout. In US History 3004 they specifically start talking about the role religion played in the founding of this nation. It's not debatable. The evidence is overwhelming. 

Majoring in history is another of her lies.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




I think Peach is a big girl too...unless she hired you to speak for her.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm saying that nobody will help you because what you claim is insupportable, and your methods are crap.
> 
> And if you're a history major, then I'm a ballerina.



So, if a person is debating and holding their own by theirself, you look on that as no one agrees with them?   Automatically?    Is that how it works for you...run in packs or else you're wrong?


----------



## Spoonman (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying that nobody will help you because what you claim is insupportable, and your methods are crap.
> ...



you've been arguing this thread for a week now and you don't have a final concensus yet?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Not at all. I said what I meant. Not something else.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Worse than that...Allie still can't pin down those Christian tenets she says our country was founded upon.   

She huffs and she puffs quite consistently tho.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



The ONLY consensus we have have is that Bode is a liar.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



But, let me ask where I lied....that's the sticking point for you.  Saying someone lied...easy.

Pointing out where someone lied...a little harder.

Proving something a lie....even  harder still.

SO, begin.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



This thread is rife with your lies you idiot. They have been documented.

Your latest being that you have a degree in history. That's a bald faced lie. As I said , in US History 3004 they SPECIFICALLY teach the role the Christian had in founding this nation, if you had a degree in history, you most definitely would have taken that class and definitely would not be denying a simple fact.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



No, it is not a lie....but you are welcome to prove that I do not have a degree in History.



> As I said , in US History 3004 they SPECIFICALLY teach the role the Christian had in founding this nation, if you had a degree in history, you most definitely would have taken that class and definitely would not be denying a simple fact.



Apparently you think all colleges have the exactly same curriculum.   WIll you kindly show that all college BA majors in history have to take US History 3004 and that all colleges thruout the U.S. offer it as a manditory class?

In fact I just googled U.S. History 3004.      


(Hint:   think US History 304....)


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I don't have to prove it, it's obvious. You're a liar. Oh and ALL colleges offer a third US History course, it may be labeled something differently, but they ALL offer it, and yes they all do teach pretty much the same curriculum. 

But feel free to further prove that you're a liar. Not that we need further proof.


Just seen your edit. God your an idiot, a 304 course is the EXACT same thing as a 3004 course.

I take it back, I don't think you're even a college dropout. Don't think you've ever darkened a college doorstep.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

"History major" = I took a history class before I flunked out.

I know this one, lol...


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

US History 3004


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "History major" = I took a history class before I flunked out.
> 
> I know this one, lol...



I don't think she flunked out, I think she flat never attended college. PERIOD. Not even a junior college. The idiot doesn't even realize that a 304 course is the same thing as a 3004 course.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



 

Uh...no it isn't.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> US History 3004



Here you go stupid liar. Here is ONE example of a college which uses thousand levels to denote classes.

ECU Course Listing

you stupid liar.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It is to stupid. Some colleges use hundreds  and some uses thousands , but in all cases it denotes the same thing. The three denotes Junior level and the 4 denotes four credit hours.

Thank you for absolutely proving that you have never attended college.


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...


Does that mean it is to you?

I Googled both. Here are the first results

3004 - History of Maternity Leave in the US - feminist debates: gwss 3004

304 - HST304: Honors U.S. History | K12

U.S. Urban History | History 304, Professor Mark Souther

HIST 304: US HISTORY 1877-PRESENT: Eastern Washington (EWU): Koofers

Seems to vary by institution.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Every institution I've been in and known has 3 digit numbers...the first number (in the hundred slot) indicates year...1= freshman or first year, 2=sophomore or 2nd year, etc....so, I guess TheBrain is struggling a little and is in his 30th year.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes, that was my exact point. Colleges designate their courses in two different ways, but a junior level history course is a junior level history course.  Bode's Lie to the contrary not withstanding.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



You just continue to prove you're a liar don't you. I even posted an online class guide from a college that uses four digit class designations.

You've NEVER attended college, guarantee it.


----------



## freedombecki (May 8, 2011)

George Washington

_Prayer at Valley Forge_, by Arnold Friberg

God bless the Father of our Country and Christian Founder


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> George Washington
> 
> _Prayer at Valley Forge_, by Arnold Friberg
> 
> God bless the Father of our Country and Christian Founder



"he wasn't a Christian god dammit, Christians would not have let Bode be gay"

Oops I just nailed it right there. Bode refuses to admit that Christians, even back then, were not for forcing people conform by governmental decree. 

This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on Christianity by Bode.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Oooooh...an ONLINE college.    Carry on.....


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Eastern Carolina is not an online college, and they are NOT the only college to use four digit class designations , you lying troll.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> George Washington
> 
> _Prayer at Valley Forge_, by Arnold Friberg
> 
> God bless the Father of our Country and Christian Founder



Very nice picture...think it was real?


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Oooooh...Eastern Carolina.....Carry on.....


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


If they carry the same accreditation, what difference does it make?


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

Hey, Bo

Free Online Course Materials | MIT OpenCourseWare


----------



## freedombecki (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > George Washington
> ...



Some people aren't aware of what General George Washington was up against when he pled our struggling nation of Christian pilgrims and others' case to Jesus in prayer.

This about sums it up:



> Valley Forge was an encampment of the Continental Army in Pennsylvania, just about 20 miles south of Philadelphia. General Washington's troops stayed there from December of 1777 to June of 1778. In 1776, George Washington and his troops crossed the mighty Delaware River. They then fought the Battle of Trenton which decided whether or not General Washington and his troops would stay at Valley Forge.
> 
> The first three months that the troops spent at Valley Forge were most definitely the hardest. The troops did not have proper clothing. Many soldiers went without boots and some did not even have other articles of warm clothing. For the first couple of months the troops were there, they began to make log cabins out of wood. It was very hard to put 11,000 men into a wood lot south of Philadelphia.
> 
> ...



Credits for quotation: American Revolution: Valley Forge


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Hey, Bo
> 
> Free Online Course Materials | MIT OpenCourseWare



JBeukema....I graduated from college before the Internet.   Heck, I graduated before the PC came out.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I'm am quite aware that Washington was a religious man...he checked all the proprieties of a proper Virginia Planter.

As a side bar...one of the best things that happened to the Continental Army during Valley Forge was Von Steuben having the time to train them like proper troops.


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Bo
> ...


Your point?


----------



## freedombecki (May 8, 2011)

The First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774







> O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
> 
> _*Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come*_. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
> 
> ...


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> The First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Colonial times....that's a nice prayer....is it law?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Where in the definition of the word "found" is the word "law"?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I know of East Carolina Pirates as I was born near there and they recruited a lot of boys my son played football with. One plays there now. 
Never heard of Eastern Carolina.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > The First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774​
> ...


 
Where is the word *law* in the definition of found?

Oh that's right...you didn't see the definition any of the multiple times I posted it. Maybe it's a vision thing:

"
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
*imp. & p. **1.*imp. & p. p. of Find.*v. t.**1.*To form by melting a metal, and pouring it into a mold; to cast. [imp. & p. p. Founded; p. pr. & vb. n. Founding.]
*n.**1.*A thin, single-cut file for combmakers.*v. t.**1.*To lay the basis of; to set, or place, as on something solid, for support; to ground; to establish upon a basis, literal or figurative; to fix firmly. [imp. & p. p. Founded; p. pr. & vb. n. Founding.]
I had else been perfect,
Whole as the marble, founded as the rock. - Shak.

A man that all his time
Hath founded his good fortunes on your love. - Shak.

It fell not, for it was founded on a rock. - Matt. vii. 25.

*2.*To take the ffirst steps or measures in erecting or building up; to furnish the materials for beginning; to begin to raise; to originate; as, to *found* a college; to *found* a family. There they shall *found
*Their government, and their great senate choose."

Found - Definition of Found by Webster's Online Dictionary


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > The First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774​
> ...


 
Where is the word *law* in the definition of found?

Oh that's right...you didn't see the definition any of the multiple times I posted it. Maybe it's a vision thing:

"
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
*imp. & p. **1.*imp. & p. p. of Find.*v. t.**1.*To form by melting a metal, and pouring it into a mold; to cast. [imp. & p. p. Founded; p. pr. & vb. n. Founding.]
*n.**1.*A thin, single-cut file for combmakers.*v. t.**1.*To lay the basis of; to set, or place, as on something solid, for support; to ground; to establish upon a basis, literal or figurative; to fix firmly. [imp. & p. p. Founded; p. pr. & vb. n. Founding.]
I had else been perfect,
Whole as the marble, founded as the rock. - Shak.

A man that all his time
Hath founded his good fortunes on your love. - Shak.

It fell not, for it was founded on a rock. - Matt. vii. 25.

*2.*To take the ffirst steps or measures in erecting or building up; to furnish the materials for beginning; to begin to raise; to originate; as, to *found* a college; to *found* a family. There they shall *found
*Their government, and their great senate choose."

HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Where is it in the LAW.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various and changing religous views and opinions.
There are so many denominations and Christian beliefs in this country:
WHICH ONE WERE WE FOUNDED ON?
My ancestors are Quaker. They fought slavery and had Friendship churches.
Are you claiming we were founded on their beliefs?


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Bo
> ...



Complete lie.


As an aside. What kind of idiot asks if a painting is real?

Oh apologies to GaDawg, I believe it was his, for writing East Carolina, as Eastern Carolina. Not that big of an error, but I don't want to seem like the liar Bode.


----------



## freedombecki (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > The First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774
> ...


Why yes it is. It is God's law.

It contributed to the forging of this Christian Nation, as did then-General Washington's famous prayer at Valley Forge. God answered his people. He defended and brought victory to naked, barefoot soldiers. It is God's doing, giving our rag-tag, work-a-day American patriots land on which they could return his kindnesses by opposing oppressors, feeding the hungry, nursing the poor and the refuse of humanity who came here sick, hungry, some in chains of slavery. The Congress would not exist to create the nation it envisioned if each state declared itself a closed society of religious fanatics and killed all "infidels." The founders were Christians to a man, including Thomas Jefferson. As writer of the Constitution, it was necessary to omit religious references, even Christian ones due to the diversity of dissent it would have disabled the formation of the United States of America. It was wiser than letting different Christian sects take out unity on one point or another.

On Jefferson's Christianity in his own words: http://www.sciencedigest.org/jefferson_religion.htm

That's why we are a Christian Nation, and it is my prayer that we will improve in the worthiness that accompanies true faith and belief in God's grace through Jesus Christ.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You've been arguing this for quite awhile and you could NOT be more wrong. We are NOT a nation based on laws. We are nation based on ideals. Christian ideals. Many countries have codified legal systems very similar to ours, but they are NOT us, why? Because of our ideals.

So you're arguing about laws is a complete strawman.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What protects you from the power of government? Ideals? LOL. 

This is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE site:

A Nation of Laws - Conservative Politics Web Site

Guns, blood, sweat and THE LAW are what this country was founded on. 
Ideals? You have got to be kidding.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Are God's Laws our Country's laws?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 8, 2011)

The belief in God was almost universal with the Founders. God-foundation-founders.
Make the law. No where mentioned in Constitution but as we have been saying a shit load here:
Christianity influenced the Founders in writing the laws but were not the foundation of GOVERNMENT.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Do you REALLY think laws protect you from anything? If that were so then the law making murder illegal would mean no one would commit murder. But that obviously is not the case. 

What keeps people from being murdered is people's ideals telling them not to murder. 

Our founding father's ideals told them that man was created equal and that was a basis for a new nation. A very Christ like ideal. And hey to be truthful that is an ideal espoused by many religions, BUT those religions weren't represented by any of the founding fathers, so we know they aren't the basis for our nation.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> The belief in God was almost universal with the Founders. God-foundation-founders.
> Make the law. No where mentioned in Constitution but as we have been saying a shit load here:
> Christianity influenced the Founders in writing the laws but were not the foundation of GOVERNMENT.



You guys are ridiculous. You're saying that because we aren't a theocracy that there is noway we were founded on Christian principles.

NO ONE could really be as stupid as some of you are acting.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Says you...and we know you can't handle the truth pointed out to you.  That's ok...rather entertaining.




> As an aside. What kind of idiot asks if a painting is real?



Tongue in cheek is a higher level, more adult form of humor.  I'm not surprised you didn't get it.



> Oh apologies to GaDawg, I believe it was his, for writing East Carolina, as Eastern Carolina. Not that big of an error, but I don't want to seem like the liar Bode.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The belief in God was almost universal with the Founders. God-foundation-founders.
> ...



I would be more likely to believe you if you could list those Christian principles incorporated into the way our country is run.

But...as of yet....nothing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

The principles were already noted, and the fact has been established that the US was founded on Christian principle.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The principles were already noted, and the fact has been established that the US was founded on Christian principle.



I love the way the idiot ignores facts given and continues to scream that no one has answered her questions. 

I also love how she is trying to backtrack her way out of claiming that colleges don't use four digit class designations. LOL

History major my ass. She's never even BEEN to college.


----------



## HUGGY (May 8, 2011)

*The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*

Keep in mind that the human race was pretty sure that the sun revolved around the earth only a hundred years previous to our countries existence.

Not EVERYTHING our forefathers believed to be true was in fact so.

It is amazing they got so much right.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Unfreekin' believable....now laws mean nothing to you.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The principles were already noted, and the fact has been established that the US was founded on Christian principle.



They were not...or you would have no problem listing them for us again....but you will not.   Just watch.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Damn you're pitiful. That isn't even close to what I said, and I think you know it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The principles were already noted, and the fact has been established that the US was founded on Christian principle.
> ...


 
And you're a liar.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

How many times did you deny the definition of found had been provided?

Fucking nut.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> How many times did you deny the definition of found had been provided?
> 
> Fucking nut.



She's a waste of the oxygen she breathes.

Unworthy of debate.


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> We are NOT a nation based on laws.



So John Adams had no idea what he was talking about and I don't have to follow the Law? All those laws about due process and COTUS- thew Lw of the Land- mean absolutely nothing?


> We are nation based on ideals. Christian ideals.



We're a nation of a theocratic autocracy? Or do you really intend Heaven is meant to represent an ideal world?

The War for Independence was a direct violation of God's law.


> Many countries have codified legal systems very similar to ours, but they are NOT us, why? Because of our ideals.



What ideals are those?


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...


They do a better job than the ideals of a pig.

We don't have courts of ideals, and if we did their rulings would be meaningless.





> Our founding father's ideals told them that man was created equal


so long as they were White male landed gentry





> and that was a basis for a new nation.


Along with slavery





> A very Christ like ideal



Fuck your christ. Slaves should rise up against their 'masters'.


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> 
> Keep in mind that the human race was pretty sure that the sun revolved around the earth only a hundred years previous to our countries existence.
> 
> ...


They got so much right because of one particular Christian pillar they rejected: Faith

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505]Amazon.com: The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (9780060781507): Timothy Ferris: Books[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

Yes, one of the Christian tenets is that each person must personally choose their spiritual path. So of course they weren't going to force religion upon anyone.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So John Adams had no idea what he was talking about and I don't have to follow the Law? All those laws about due process and COTUS- thew Lw of the Land- mean absolutely nothing?



That is not even close to what I said JB. Don't pull a Bode here. Of course are laws are important, But they are NOT the foundation of this country. Any country can have laws; but there is something else that makes the US special. 




> We're a nation of a theocratic autocracy? Or do you really intend Heaven is meant to represent an ideal world?



Again, NO ONE has suggested we were meant to be a Christian theocracy

and hw was the war for Independence against God? The King of England may have thought he was God's chosen leader, but meh.......


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...





Oh, you're wrong. I think it's beyond obvious that the founding fathers were mostly Believers.

Oh, and as I pointed out 20 pages ago, before you came to the thread I believe. The BIGGEST thing they took from Christianity was free will. Each person is free to choose their own destiny. Would you not say that describes the United States to a tee?


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, one of the Christian tenets is that each person must personally choose their spiritual path. So of course they weren't going to force religion upon anyone.



That is a Christian tenet?   I thought to Christians there was only one way, thru Christ.


Sounds more like Hinduism to me.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Free will?   What about Predetermination?


Actually Free will I would buy....EXCEPT...is it exclusively a Christian tenet or is it a generic tenet (except for some belief systems like SOME Christian sects)?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, one of the Christian tenets is that each person must personally choose their spiritual path. So of course they weren't going to force religion upon anyone.
> ...


 
Of course it does. Well we've established that you are no expert, and that your odd and incomplete store of knowledge means you can't make an informed opinion. So what it sounds like to you has no bearing on anything, except the degree of your delusion.


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Again, you are unworthy of me discussing this with you.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You keep saying that, but you never provide evidence....so I'm on to your little game.


How about another neg rep?    Or is it getting too hard to spread rep all day in order to get me back for telling the Truth?


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> there is something else that makes the US special.



What's that? How is this country 'special'?

Our excellent civil rights history? 

Our Quality of life? (we're #13)

Our excellent human development? Also #13

Our economic freedom? We're #8




> Again, NO ONE has suggested we were meant to be a Christian theocracy



Then we're not founded on Christian ideals, as the Chrisitan ideal, as outlined in the conception of Heaven, is a theocratic autocracy where zero dissent or independent thought is allowed. The Christian ideal is naturally antagonistic to liberty.


> and hw was the war for Independence against God?



Read your bible



> The King of England may have thought he was God's chosen leader,




He was.

  1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 
 2Whosoever  therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they  that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 



-Romans 13

 1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 
 2To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. 

-Titus 3

The FF shall burn for their sins


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



The FF rejected faith. They were men of _science_. Franklin is merely the most obvious example. They demanded that which was accepted as true be challenged and not accepted because some book or some preacher or other 'authority' said it was so.

With faith there is no liberty, only dogma and social stagnation.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505]Amazon.com: The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (9780060781507): Timothy Ferris: Books[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba (May 8, 2011)

bodecea said:


> alliebaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
liar


----------



## TheBrain (May 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



okay, I'm out. I can't even believe you are going to claim that the founding father's were even Christians.

Some people are just willfully stupid.


----------



## JBeukema (May 8, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Some people are just willfully stupid.


You always have been a fine example of that.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are just willfully stupid.
> ...



Yeah, that's some sour grapes right there JB and we both know it. I made it clear to you, I don't deal with liars and dishonest debaters. You don't like it, stop doing it. I was more than willing to debate this topic with you or anyone else until you and or they behaved that way.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

That's a bit over the top, given your propensity for lying and your crap debate skills.

Dishonest debaters indeed.

Pffffft...


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



In other words, You've got nothing....we'll see you again later then....because you WILL be back.   Then we get to talk more about being honest about oneself, don't we?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's a bit over the top, given your propensity for lying and your crap debate skills.
> 
> Dishonest debaters indeed.
> 
> Pffffft...



Your post is rather Ironic to say the least....I must say.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > alliebaba said:
> ...



Pretty colors doesn't make what I said any less true, Allie.    You'd think that you'd be eager to prove me wrong by posting your list of Christian principles again and again.

If it were me, I'd have them bookmarked for easy reference.

But not you....you simply keep saying you've already done it when you have done no such thing.   When called on it, you get insulting and another neg rep comes my way....how many is that in two weeks now?   11?   12?    Your sense of denial is STRONG!  

You're ability to PROVE your argument is weak, weak, weak.  I don't see it getting any better soon.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 9, 2011)

I see bodumbass is still fighting a losing battle.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea,
Why does the House ,Senate and Supreme Court still have opening prayers before they do business?
What do you think the purpose of that is?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea,
> Why does the House ,Senate and Supreme Court still have opening prayers before they do business?
> What do you think the purpose of that is?



Do they have to have those opening prayers?   And are those prayers always Christian?

To me, and this is only my opinion, is tradition and to pander.   If someone forgot to do it one day, it would be no big deal.....nor would it break any laws.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I see bodumbass is still fighting a losing battle.



I am glad to see that you have again added some thought provoking facts to this debate, Lonestar_Logic.   How long did it take for you to research this awesome stuff?


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

The purpose of why they have prayer
PURPOSE 

Throughout the more than 200-year history of our nation, prayer has played a vital role in strengthening the fabric of our society. The purposes of the Congressional Prayer Caucus are to 1) recognize the vital role that prayer by individuals of all faiths has played in uniting us as a people and in making us a more generous, more cooperative, and more forgiving people than we might otherwise have been; 2) collect, exchange, and disseminate information about prayer as a fundamental and enduring feature of American life; 3) use the legislative process &#8211; both through sponsorship of affirmative legislation and through opposition to detrimental legislation &#8211; to assist the nation and its people in continuing to draw upon and benefit from this essential source of our strength and well-being.


----------



## del (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The purpose of why they have prayer
> PURPOSE
> 
> Throughout the more than 200-year history of our nation, prayer has played a vital role in strengthening the fabric of our society. The purposes of the Congressional Prayer Caucus are to 1) recognize the vital role that *prayer by individuals of all faiths* has played in uniting us as a people and in making us a more generous, more cooperative, and more forgiving people than we might otherwise have been; 2) collect, exchange, and disseminate information about prayer as a fundamental and enduring feature of American life; 3) use the legislative process  both through sponsorship of affirmative legislation and through opposition to detrimental legislation  to assist the nation and its people in continuing to draw upon and benefit from this essential source of our strength and well-being.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Yes del, the wanted to protect everybody's right to worship as they please. We know that. 

But they said they founded the country based upon their belief in a Christian God, and the belief that we all have inalienable rights that are granted by that God alone. They also said that the government wouldn't work except to govern a Christian people.


----------



## del (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes del, the wanted to protect everybody's right to worship as they please. We know that.
> 
> But they said they founded the country based upon their belief in a Christian God, and the belief that we all have inalienable rights that are granted by that God alone. They also said that the government wouldn't work except to govern a Christian people.



no, they didn't. 

keep trying, though. it's amusing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > I see bodumbass is still fighting a losing battle.
> ...



There's really nothing left to be said. It's been proven that our FF's founded this nation on Christian principles with historical documents, Supreme Court rulings and the FF's own words.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The purpose of why they have prayer
> PURPOSE
> 
> Throughout the more than 200-year history of our nation, prayer has played a vital role in strengthening the fabric of our society. The purposes of the Congressional Prayer Caucus are to 1) recognize the vital role that prayer by *individuals of all faiths* has played in uniting us as a people and in making us a more generous, more cooperative, and more forgiving people than we might otherwise have been; 2) collect, exchange, and disseminate information about prayer as a fundamental and enduring feature of American life; 3) use the legislative process  both through sponsorship of affirmative legislation and through opposition to detrimental legislation  to assist the nation and its people in continuing to draw upon and benefit from this essential source of our strength and well-being.


So...it's NOT just a Christian thing?


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

That is the point I am making about religion.
86% of this nation is religious
76% of them are Christians.
It is what unites us as Americans and makes us a better nation.
We have the freedom to choose what religion we would like.
As Americans you have the freedom to be an atheist.
As Americans you have the right to choose who you want to be or not be.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Then you came back to say nothing?



> It's been proven that our FF's founded this nation on Christian principles with historical documents, Supreme Court rulings and the FF's own words.



Well, if you can list those Christian principles that our country was founded on....you will be the first.   Have at it, my friend.   List them.   Give us at least a few.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Yes del, the wanted to protect everybody's right to worship as they please. We know that.
> ...



del, have you read the federalist papers? It is in there that they said this.
The papers also explained why we are a Federal Republic and not a democracy,and why. Because our founding fathers knew that democracies can and have failed. And I bet that you don't believe this either.
I blame our schools, they haven't been teaching these things for over 46 years.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No I came back to comment on you fighting a losing battle. Is your reading comprehension skills really that bad?

You've been shown plenty of evidence but you choose to ignore it.


----------



## del (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



yes, i have. the FF said a lot of things. they were right about some, like federalism, and wrong about others, like slavery. 

some were included in the founding documents of our country.

 jesus wasn't. 

sorry.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea have you read the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers?
If you haven't I think you should.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Can you plz link the Federalist Paper that says that?   TIA



> The papers also explained why we are a Federal Republic and not a democracy,and why. Because our founding fathers knew that democracies can and have failed. And I bet that you don't believe this either.



You are correct that we are a Republic....aka a Representative Democracy.   We took the best from the Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, the writings of Locke, Montesqueue, and the English Bill of Rights.




> I blame our schools, they haven't been teaching these things for over 46 years.




Actually they have been, particularly in HS and college.   But students frequently choose to not listen.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Maybe it will be a losing battle when someone (maybe you?) can list some of those Christian Principles our nation was founded on.

That hasn't happened yet...so I haven't lost anything yet.



> Is your reading comprehension skills really that bad?



My reading comprehension skills are just find.   I can tell when someone provides a factual list....and when someone is just trying to blow smoke and insult rather than debate.



> You've been shown plenty of evidence but you choose to ignore it.



Since there is plenty of evidence of those Christian Principles...it will be easy for you to list them, won't it?


----------



## Care4all (May 9, 2011)

the founding fathers did not create this country for Christians.....or as Christians....they were the "enlightened" ones, free masons, Illuminati...the illuminate....they stood for the separation of church and state....which many of the established churches of the time, did not agree with....because this meant that these established churches would lose their power over the people.

I am as Christian as they come, but our country, through all of my recent research, was NOT founded on "Christianity", though some if not many of our ideals as a country might have been extended from it.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

del said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



God was mentioned throughout all of the papers. Who do you think Divine Providence ,the creator and Providence was? God that is who.
This thread started as our Founding Fathers were not Christians and they were.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was written with help from prayer to a Divine Providence ( A Christian God). The majority of our founding fathers believed that Divine Providence help them to win the revolutionary war.
George Washington himself wrote many letters explaining how he was not killed during battle because God - Divine Providence protected him. Many unexplained miracles happened to him throughout his life and he believed it was God who protected him.
That is how they talked back then,they did not say God they said Divine Providence.


----------



## del (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



psst. there are people who believe in god who aren't christians.

don't let it get around, otay? it's very hush hush.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

?


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> the founding fathers did not create this country for Christians.....or as Christians....they were the "enlightened" ones, free masons, Illuminati...the illuminate....they stood for the separation of church and state....which many of the established churches of the time, did not agree with....because this meant that these established churches would lose their power over the people.
> 
> I am as Christian as they come, but our country, through all of my recent research, was NOT founded on "Christianity", though some if not many of our ideals as a country might have been extended from it.



Lord help us and what our young believe. Good Grief.
Our Founders created this country for freedom of religion of all faiths and freedom from a Federal Government.
Separation of Church and state meant that a state could not form a certain religion like what they came away from in Europe.
The Illuminati is from a movie and is not true about our actual history.

The movement was founded on May 1, 1776, in Inconstant (Upper Bavaria) as the Order of the Illuminati, with an initial membership of five,[1] by Jesuit-taught Adam Weishaupt (d. 1830),[2] who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt.[3] The movement was made up of freethinkers as an offshoot of the Enlightenment, and seems to have been modeled on the Freemasons.[4]

Originally Weishaupt had planned the order to be named the "Perfectibilists".[5] The group has also been called the Bavarian Illuminati and the movement itself has been referred to as Illuminism (after illuminism). In 1777, Karl Theodor became ruler of Bavaria. He was a proponent of Enlightened Despotism and, in 1784, his government banned all secret societies, including the Illuminati.

During the period when the Illuminati were legally allowed to operate, many influential intellectuals and progressive politicians counted themselves as members, including Ferdinand of Brunswick and the diplomat Xavier von Zwack, who was number two in the operation and was found with much of the group's literature when his home was searched.[6] The Illuminati's members pledged obedience to their superiors. Members were divided into three main classes, each with several degrees.

The order had its branches in most countries of the European continent; it reportedly had around 2,000 members over the span of ten years.[7] The organization had its attraction for literary men, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Johann Gottfried Herder, and even for the reigning dukes of Gotha and Weimar. Weishaupt modeled his group to some extent on Freemasonry, and many Illuminati chapters drew membership from existing Masonic lodges. Internal rupture and panic over succession preceded its downfall, which was effected by the Secular Edict made by the Bavarian government in 1785.[8]

Notice that none of our Founding Fathers are named here? That is because they weren't.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

del said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Yes like Jews and Muslums that is why we have freedom of religion.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

Why do you have a problem with the majority of this nation being Christian?
They were back then and they are now.
83% of this nation is religious.
76% of them are Christians.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

The left's hatred of Christianity is personal. They hate Christians because Christian morality tells them they are not very nice.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Use a little bit of common sense (if you possess any) and read what the FF's have said. The only item you need on your dopey list is unalienable rights. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. These rights were endowed to man by our Creator and that's exactly what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. These truths are self-evident.


Now I'm off to Louisiana for a bid meeting.

Good day.


----------



## del (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The left's hatred of Christianity is personal. They hate Christians because Christian morality tells them they are not very nice.



i'm not a leftist.

i'm not a christian, nor a jew, nor a muslim, but i believe in god.

i don't hate christians, but i don't believe they've cornered the market on morality.

get down off your cross, allie, we need the wood.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > The left's hatred of Christianity is personal. They hate Christians because Christian morality tells them they are not very nice.
> ...



Of course Christians don't have the corner on morality. Nor do Christians always act morally. I don't believe anyone ever said we do.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Peach....if they wanted to refer to the Christian god and christ...why didn't they say so?


> This thread started as our Founding Fathers were not Christians and they were.



Please do not bear false witness...there has been NOBODY denying that most of our FF's were Christian....of many different sects, but christians nonetheless.



> Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution was written with help from prayer to a Divine Providence ( A Christian God). The majority of our founding fathers believed that Divine Providence help them to win the revolutionary war.



That's nice...but how was christianity incorporated into the structure of our country if it was all important?


> George Washington himself wrote many letters explaining how he was not killed during battle because God - Divine Providence protected him. Many unexplained miracles happened to him throughout his life and he believed it was God who protected him.



That's nice but as President of the Constitutional Convention, how did he incorporate that belief in divine miracles into the Constitution?



> That is how they talked back then,they did not say God they said Divine Providence.



ONLY the christian god was "divine providence", Peach?

So...assuming what you say is true....where does that leave the non-christians?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Stupidity incarnate.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

Care4all said:


> the founding fathers did not create this country for Christians.....or as Christians....they were the "enlightened" ones, free masons, Illuminati...the illuminate....they stood for the separation of church and state....which many of the established churches of the time, did not agree with....because this meant that these established churches would lose their power over the people.
> 
> I am as Christian as they come, but our country, through all of my recent research, was NOT founded on "Christianity", t*hough some if not many of our ideals as a country might have been extended from it*.




Which is exactly hat we've been arguing for last 20 pages or so. But some don't even want to admit that.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Are Unalienable rights a Christian tenet?   I say no....maybe we can actually debate that.

The reason I say no is that the whole concept of "unalienable rights" came during the Enlightenment, a reaction to the failing Christian concept of Divine Rights of Kings.   You do not even see that concept til the 1600s.....that's about 1500 years of christianity with no  "unalienable rights" principle.   Pardon me if I don't give christianity the credit for that idea.



> Now I'm off to Louisiana for a bid meeting.
> 
> Good day.



Drive carefully.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Just want to point out that traditionally, and by that I mean since the beginning of Christianity, when god is capitalized as God , the writer is referring to the Christian God. 
Just as Muslims talk about their god named Allah, or the Greeks talked about their god Zeus.

A history major would have known that.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Stupidity incarnate.



You don't have to sign your posts, Allie.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

You are the one who will not accept that the Constitution is for all Faith and no faith and anything else in between and that the founders used prayer to help write that document.
It has nothing to do with just Christianity but you have a problem with something that's for sure.
You patronize me?
When you did not even know that we have appointed Chaplin's who open prayer in the House,Senate and Supreme Court and has being done so before and after we became a nation. 
When you go to the Capital you will see many paintings of our founders with faith. 
You also ignore what I said about faith being the unity of the nation.
I am not making any statement about Christianity ruling over anyone or our Government.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




That's nice.   Is this a punctuation lesson now?   Was that in Punctuation 3004 or 3005?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You are the one who will not accept that the Constitution is for all Faith and no faith and anything else in between and that the founders used prayer to help write that document.



I have no problem with that whatsoever.   But you, of course, realize there is a BIG difference in saying that the Constitution and our government is for all faiths and no faiths....and saying it is for Christianity.   The first is inclusive, the second is exclusive.




> It has nothing to do with just Christianity but you have a problem with something that's for sure.




Um....isn't that the title of this thread, Peach?  that it DOESN'T have anything to do with Christianity?   Isn't that what I've been agreeing with?  That is DOESN'T have anything to do with Christianity?



> You patronize me?



No...but if it comes across that way, I apologize.



> When you did not even know that we have appointed Chaplin's who open prayer in the House,Senate and Supreme Court and has being done so before and after we became a nation.



As I said, that is a nice tradition....but is it required?   What would happen to the functioning of our country if they stopped doing that?   Or if they stopped doing Christian prayers (they have others besided christian, btw)



> When you go to the Capital you will see many paintings of our founders with faith.



I was just at the Capital last summer....the Rotunda painting of Washington was very, very pagan, Peach.   Very.  Washington as a god?   Is that the faith you refer to?
(I believe it is called the Apotheosis...which means "becoming a god")

Have you seen the big statue of Washington in the Smithsonian, posed like Zeus?  



> You also ignore what I said about faith being the unity of the nation.



I will disagree with you there...it is our secular laws that unite us...not faith.   We have multiple faiths and no faiths.   We agree to disagree on faith BECAUSE of our secular laws that comfort us that no one faith will take precedence over any other.   (At least that is supposed to be how it works).



> I am not making any statement about Christianity ruling over anyone or our Government.




I'm glad.


----------



## JScott (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Allah means God. God is also used as a first name thats why it is capitalized.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes del, the wanted to protect everybody's right to worship as they please. We know that.
> 
> But they said they founded the country based upon their belief in a Christian God, and the belief that we all have inalienable rights that are granted by that God alone. They also said that the government wouldn't work except to govern a Christian people.


Actually, they stated repeatedly that they founded this nation based on their belief in liberty (for White people) and the consent of the governed (at least as far as White people were concerned).

These are Liberal, not Christian, principles.

Theirs was the language of Locke and et al.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> There's really nothing left to be said. It's been proven that our FF's founded this nation on Christian principles with historical documents, Supreme Court rulings and the FF's own words.



SCOTUS? Please cite. Because COTUS puts international treaties on par with COTUS itself, which means the closest thing we have to any constitutional statement on the matter is the Treaty of Tripoli.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> That is the point I am making about religion.
> 86% of this nation is religious
> 76% of them are Christians.



Only if you use extremely liberal definitions.


> It is what unites us as Americans



By that reasoning, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and Shinto can never be Americans or be united as Americans.

Please prove that after 9/11 all members of the aforementioned were unable to stand united as Americans.

Else your statement is bullshit.





> We have the freedom to choose what religion we would like.


You're making a great case for America being a secular nation.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution

&#8220;Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.&#8221;
[Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)]

Justice Story&#8217;s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:

&#8220;When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God entitles them . . .

&#8220;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 . . .

&#8220;And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.&#8221; (emphases mine.)

Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago.  Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, &#8220;Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.&#8221; [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):

&#8220;Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.&#8221; (emphasis mine.)

Perhaps this will help you to see what the majority here are saying.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> del, have you read the federalist papers?


Not all the FF were federalists. Some were anti-federalists and wrote their won propaganda.

This disagreement- the fact that the FF weren't all of one mind- would lead to the great compromise reflected in COTUS.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > That is the point I am making about religion.
> ...



And you are not reading what all I wrote. You are taking just a few statements of what I said and turning it in to something that was not stated by me.
I said all religions is what unite us.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's a lesson in words mattering moron. if someone writes " I believe in god", it does NOT mean the same thing as saying "I believe in God"

Damn you're stupid and petty. Can you really not EVER concede a point, even one you are clearly wrong about (IE The Third Reich is NOT a country.)


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution
> 
> &#8220;Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.&#8221;
> [Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)]



That is a very scary commentary.   Now, he has every right to personally believe that.   Do you think our Constitution would allow him and those like him to codify that favortism towards Christianity into our laws?



> Justice Story&#8217;s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution,




No, Justice Story's understanding reflects Justice Story's opinion favoring Christianity over other faiths....antithema to our American Constitution and Bill of Rights.



> who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> &#8220;When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of *Nature&#8217;s God* entitles them . . .



very pagan....'Nature's God'.



> &#8220;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 . . .



"THEIR Creator"....any religion's creator...left up to the interpretation of each of us as to who or what if anything is our 'creator'.



> &#8220;And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.&#8221; (emphases mine.)



"Divine Providence" again could be any religion or even darn good luck.



> Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago.  Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, &#8220;Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.&#8221; [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]



Is that part of the Court's DECISION?   or comments made after the DECISION part?   Let's look....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States

Now, it is interesting to note that Justice Brewer became concerned that his statement was being misinterpreted as meaning we  are a Christian nation....so he wrote a book clarifying his point of view...and in it:



> But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.



Interesting that Justice Brewer would say that.  I wonder if your source left that out.



> A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
> 
> &#8220;Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of* all civilized *and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to *his Maker* and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided *always the laws of society,* designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. *However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country,* passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.&#8221; (emphasis mine.)



Further emphasis mine.  In other words, religions aren't allowed to get away with criminal behavior...christian or otherwise.



> Perhaps this will help you to see what the majority here are saying.



Well, if you meant to bolster my case, you've done a good job with a little help from me.   Thank you.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States



Not a ruling. Not Law.

You know what was Law? An international treaty, which is on par with COTUS itself.

Guess what it said.





> Justice Storys understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution


The ones who were still around and very influential in 1796?


> , who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitles them . . .


'Nature's God'? So they were pagans?





> 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 . . .



Why such deistic language? Why not 'our LORD' or 'GOD'? 

Hint: many were deists and our first president was sworn into office while wearing a Masonic apron.





> And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. (emphases mine.)



Fanciful language and great propaganda but not legally binding having any weight or merit at all beyond its use as propaganda.





> Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago.  Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.



So he's saying we should have kept slavery and never rebelled against the worldly authorities (the King) God put on Earth to rule over us?

Or is he just picking and choosing what parts of a popular text support his own views, being not a Christian but an individual and a propagandist?


> It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.



The FF disagreed.


> Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries



Not until recently. Study your history. The Church recognized polygamous marriage for hundreds of years. This goes back to Christianity's roots in old Jewish law.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]YouTube - Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else[/ame]



> . They are crimes by the laws of the United States



So much for being based on anything biblical.

I'll not bother with the rest of his bullshit, as his entire premise has already fallen apart.

Did you guess what the FF said?

Here it is: '[T]he Government of the United States of  America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion'
-Treaty of Tripoli

*Any *sense. That meansno matter how much you try to spin it,, you're still wrong.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Fuck the treaty of Tripoli.

That was an appeasement towards the Muslim pirates that were terrorizing everybody. And it's NOT a founding document.

Found is not equal to LAW. To found a nation upon Christianity is not to establish a theocracy.

These are simple fucking concepts, and the inability of two retards to grasp them make me wonder...exactly where DID you pick up your education, and how far did you go with it? Have you ever had to write a college-level paper? Ever???? I'm not talking particularly about a college paper in college...I mean have you ever had to draft a grown-up proposal for anything, have you ever delivered a speech, have you ever written anything?? Except here?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



I cannot help but wonder if you have anything in the way of social and debating skills besides insulting behavior when you get schooled?    From past behavior and past, past behavior I'd say no....and starting off again with a clean slate doesn't seem to help much, does it?


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> The Illuminati is from a movie and is not true about our actual history.



Fail. The Illuminati was a group of freethinkers most active in Europe in the late 1700s. It shares ideological and historical connections with other such groups, including what would become the Freemasons.

Many of the FF were Freemasons and Geaorge Washington, our first president under COTUS, was swron into office whilst wearing his Masnic apron. Much of the architecture from that era features the marks of the Freemasons in its design.


> Notice that none of our Founding Fathers are named here? That is because they weren't.



Because they were actually UGLE. Washington was offered the position of Grand Master of a proposed Grand Lodge of the United States.  The GLUSA did not come into being; instead, there is a Grand Lodge in each member State.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Fuck the treaty of Tripoli.



You mean that Treaty that was unanimously passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams (who you love to quote)...and became codified as law.



> That was an appeasement towards the Muslim pirates that were terrorizing everybody. And it's NOT a founding document.



It is part of our nation's law...no matter how much you huff and puff and pout over it.



> Found is not equal to LAW. To found a nation upon Christianity is not to establish a theocracy.
> 
> These are simple fucking concepts, and the inability of two retards to grasp them make me wonder...exactly where DID you pick up your education, and how far did you go with it? Have you ever had to write a college-level paper? Ever???? I'm not talking particularly about a college paper in college...I mean have you ever had to draft a grown-up proposal for anything, have you ever delivered a speech, have you ever written anything?? Except here?



Still waiting for that list of Christian tenets you say we are founded under.   The ones no one else seems to have seen besides you.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The Illuminati is from a movie and is not true about our actual history.
> ...



Have you seen the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Wash. D.C.?

George Washington Masonic National Memorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We drove by it last summer while in D.C. but didn't stop...were on our way to Mount Vernon.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

You go ahead and wait, honey. Alzheimer's is a terrible thing.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You go ahead and wait, honey. Alzheimer's is a terrible thing.



I'm sorry to hear about that, Allie.   I truly am.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*



I wondered when you'd show up over here, Kudzu.

Must of been a crushing blow to you when bin Laden got it, huh?


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> You know what was Law? An international treaty, which is on par with COTUS itself.
> 
> No law is on par with the COTUS.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The left's hatred of Christianity is personal. They hate Christians because Christian morality tells them they are not very nice.


I am better than your god. I am an abolitionist while your god commands slavery and your Jesus continued to support it.

It is you who hate us because we reveal your own amorality. 



JBeukema said:


> > I find that Abrahamic- primarily Christian and neo christian-  individuals oft tell far more than they realize. Take, for instance, a  common argument used by many such theists to argue the 'goodness' of  religion. This argument usually takes the form of 'how can one be good  without god?', 'where do your morals come from?' or, perhaps most  frighteningly, 'I cannot see people being good without god.'
> >
> > What is so telling about these words? Well, basically, what these people  are arguing is that they cannot imagine anyone being 'good' without  god- more specifically, that they cannot see how anyone can be moral or  upright without the fear of hell. Buddhists make a similar claim  regarding Karma and reincarnation. Now, think about what they're saying  here. They cannot see how anyone... including themselves... can be  good... good being defined, as clear by the context as honest and not  bringing harm... without fear of punishment.
> >
> > ...



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505]Amazon.com: The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (9780060781507): Timothy Ferris: Books[/ame]


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
Where polygamists can not have many wives, also Muslims, gays can not get married. That kind of laws.
Polygamists have one legal wife, but they still have many women who live with them.
Gays have many rights also here. Be glad that you don't live in Iran where they kill gays.
That is why we have our constitution so that minority's have rights also.
The problem that minorities have is they are trying to rule over the majority and then it becomes that the majority is suppressed by the few. And thus so it has always been throughout history the majority rise up against the minority.
Our Constitution may not be perfect but it is better than any other throughout history.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



In other words you have no actual debate for what I just pointed out. AGAIN


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> No law is on par with the COTUS.


COTUS means nothing, remember? You insist it's not Law. Therefore it's not legally binding and is of no relevance.

Or have you recanted your earlier stupidity?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
> Where polygamists can not have many wives, also Muslims, gays can not get married. That kind of laws.
> Polygamists have one legal wife, but they still have many women who live with them.



Where do you get these stupid ideas? I assume you just make shit up, right?

Polygamy is the act of having multiple wives, it's what the word means.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

He never insisted it wasn't law.

What we said was that the term "found" does not imply "law". Something doesn't have to be law to exist as a foundation.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
> Where polygamists can not have many wives, also Muslims, gays can not get married. That kind of laws.
> Polygamists have one legal wife, but they still have many women who live with them.
> Gays have many rights also here. Be glad that you don't live in Iran where they kill gays.
> ...



Absolutely correct, Peach.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> When you go to the Capital you will see many paintings of our founders with faith.




You'll also see George Washington himself pictured as a god.













Washinton = Zeus?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
> ...


 
You need to read it again. She's saying where the law restricts polygamists to one wife, it would also restrict gay marriage. And yet the law doesn't restrict the people living together despite it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

And I wouldn't sneer too much at Peach if I were you...her information has been the most accurate and comprehensive so far. If you don't get it, you probably want to slow down a little and read it again, cuz chances are the problem isn't with Peach, but with you.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
> ...



Why do you feel the need to cut out half of Peach's post?


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Thomas Jefferso. Paris Aug. 30. 1787  said:
			
		

> I have news from America as late as July 19. Nothing had then transpired  from the Federal convention. I am sorry they began their deliberations  by so abominable a precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their  members. Nothing can justify this example but the innocence of their  intentions, & ignorance of the value of public discussions. I have  no doubt that all their other measures will be good & wise. it is  really an assembly of demigods. Genl. Washington was of opinion they  should not separate till October.



Assembly of Demigods?


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I said all religions is what unite us.



That's not what you said, liar.



peach174 said:


> That is the point I am making about religion.
> 86% of this nation is religious
> 76% of them are Christians.
> It is what unites us as Americans and makes us a better nation.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I said all religions is what unite us.
> ...



It is if you would have read what else I said before that.
Stop taking my statements out of context.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Fuck the treaty of Tripoli.



Stupid Founding Fathers and their words 


> That was an appeasement towards the Muslim pirates that were terrorizing everybody.


All the talk of religion was appeasement toward the preachers and stpid, ignorant masses.

Goes both ways, hon.





> And it's NOT a founding document.


It was signed off by a FF and was legally binding, unlike your favourite propaganda.





> Found is not equal to LAW. To found a nation upon Christianity is not to establish a theocracy.


Yes, it is. If this nation were founded on Christianity, it would be founded don such pillars of the faith as all other religions being wrong or, if we're still bound by the ten commandments, killing all unbelievers.





> These are simple fucking concepts


And yet you can't grasp them.

The majority of the FF were Liberals and it was their Liberal principles that led them to found this nation and influenced its form.



> Have you ever had to write a college-level paper? Ever????


Yep. I was grading at a college level in eight grade, as well.  

Reading comprehensions seems to be your weakness, though.



> I'm not talking particularly about a college paper in college...I mean have you ever had to draft a grown-up proposal for anything, have you ever delivered a speech, have you ever written anything?? Except here?


Yep. You haven't, though. Else you'd know that speeches and other mass propaganda are generally aimed at about an eighth grade reading level in order to have the best effect on the idiot masses.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Alzheimer's is a terrible thing.


That explains so much. All this time I thought you were just retarded.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Er, no, it doesn't.

Can you establish the Treaty of Tripli as a founding document?

I don't believe so.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.




Like being pro-slavery?





> Where polygamists can not have many wives, also Muslims, gays can not get married. That kind of laws.



Jewish law allows polygamy and so did the Christian churches for hundreds of years.

Care to try again?


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > No law is on par with the COTUS.
> ...



Sir, I never once said that COTUS didn't matter. You absolutely KNOW I never said that.

Damn.......


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> He never insisted it wasn't law.


Yes, he did. Just last night. 

Why do you insist on making an even bigger fool of yourself?

Oh yeah, Alzheimer's...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You need to read it again. She's saying where the law restricts polygamists to one wife, it would also restrict gay marriage. And yet the law doesn't restrict the people living together despite it.



Thanks for clarifying.

It is not up to us to dictate the lifestyles of others. It does me no harm if my neighbor has no wife or twenty wives. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. (With apologies to Tom Jefferson)


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum  Windbag said:
> ...



There ya go, Allie. COTUS is not Law. Brain says so.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Er..tripoli, not tripli. Or Tripply.

Something else...that treaty says that we aren't founded upon Christian RELIGION, not that we aren't founded upon Christian PRINCIPLE.

Do you understand the difference? Words do mean something here. We have established that the FF were of different RELIGIONS already...and they never were interested in establishing a formal state religion...but they did all concur that they wanted to found the country using basic Christian TENETS.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You need to read it again. She's saying where the law restricts polygamists to one wife, it would also restrict gay marriage. And yet the law doesn't restrict the people living together despite it.
> ...


 
I'm just clarifying what Peach said, because you really misunderstood it.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this  is why you really have a problem with this. Christan Morals.
> ...



You do realize we are talking about America and American laws don't you?
And many Christians helped slaves with the underground railroad.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> You do realize we are talking about America and American laws don't you?
> And many Christians helped slaves with the underground railroad.



I think you could go as far as saying that the abolition movement was 100% Christian.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Christian churches did not allow polygamy for hundreds of years or even one year.  A one man/one woman orthodoxy had been pretty well nailed down by the time of Jesus and was certainly taught as the norm before the first century came to a close.  The very few who deviated from that were not part of mainstream Christianity and had to invent something other than the Bible to condone it.  So its safe to say that orthodox Christianity has essentially never endorsed nor accepted polygamy.

Ancient Jewish law did accept polygamy but by the First Century a one man/one woman orthodoxy had already established itself in Judaism though it was not written into official Jewish Law until around 1030 A.D.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Er..tripoli, not tripli. Or Tripply.
> 
> Something else...that treaty says that we aren't founded upon Christian RELIGION, not that we aren't founded upon Christian PRINCIPLE.



Christianity is a religion. Christian principles means principles of the Christian RELIGION.

'in no way'

No matter how you spin it, you're simply wrong.





> Do you understand the difference? Words do mean something here. We have established that the FF were of different RELIGIONS already


So those non-Christians founded a religion based on principles of a religion they didn't adhere to? 

No, you twit, they founded the nation on Liberal principles. Theres were the words and principles of Locke and Rousseau, not Moses and Peter.

Christian tenets? Like killing the unbelievers and all other religions being wrong?

I'll grant you one Christian tenet- they did believe in slavery, which Jesus was cool with. I'll grant you that one example of religion getting in the way of progress and preventing people from enjoying the liberty their Liberal principles told them everyone should enjoy.

Yes, unfortunately, they believed enough of the bible to have slaves. Congratufuckinglations on that one.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Indeed they did....and many other christians fought FOR slavery.   In fact, the Methodist and Baptist sects of christianity split over the issue.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


And they spat upon the Laws of God in doing so.

See: Epheisans 6:5 ; Colossians 3:22

Thanks for providing another example of people putting their own morals and principles above those of Christianity and 'god'.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-UajSDW_E]YouTube - The non morality of theism[/ame]

Not only were theirs not Christian morals or principles- they were distinctly anti-Christian as they were directly at odds with biblical teachings and principles. They realized their religion was evil and were willing to place their own conscience above god- to be like Lucifer himself, elevating themselves above God and making His word and Law second to their own.

It was the rejection of religion and its dogma that allowed such progress.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Science-Liberty-Democracy-Reason-Nature/dp/0060781505]Amazon.com: The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature (9780060781507): Timothy Ferris: Books[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize we are talking about America and American laws don't you?
> ...


Quite the opposite. To help an escaped slave to to spit on Jesus and the Law of God himself. it is to declare your own conscience superior to God's. It is to be like Lucifer and state that you shall be like the most high, deciding what is good and what is evil.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 9, 2011)

Sigh.  I really wish some of our peanut gallery was getting their history out of competent history books instead of from anti-Christian websites.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize we are talking about America and American laws don't you?
> ...



What precentage of the pro-slavery movement do you think was christian?


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



They didn't? so then Wikipedia is wrong?

The escape network was solely "underground" in the sense of being an underground resistance. The network was known as a "railroad" by way of the use of rail terminology in the code.[12] The Underground Railroad consisted of meeting points, secret routes, transportation, and safe houses, and assistance provided by abolitionist sympathizers. Individuals were often organized in small, independent groups, which helped to maintain secrecy since some knew of connecting "stations" along the route but few details of their immediate area. Escaped slaves would move along the route from one way station to the next, steadily making their way north. "Conductors" on the railroad came from various backgrounds and included free-born blacks, white abolitionists, former slaves (either escaped or manumitted), and Native Americans. Churches also often played a role, especially the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Congregationalists, Wesleyans, and Reformed Presbyterians as well as certain sects of mainstream denominations such as branches of the Methodist church and American Baptists.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Not a single Christian was ever an abolitionist.

Anyone who places their own self above God and sees fit to declare what is right or what is evil as though their declarations were above the Laws and commandments of the LORd and the words of Christ himself is no follower of Christ. Beware these false Christians and their false churches, for Jesus warned of they who pretend to be holy while leading men down the broad and winding road to damnation.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> They didn't? so then Wikipedia is wrong?



You should know that Wikipedia should never be used as an authority on anything. It has its uses and its place, but you should avoid depending on it as the foundation of your argument.

No, no Christian was ever an abolitionist, for Jesus says that slaves are to obey their masters with the same love they have for God. To contradict this is to contradict Christ, and one who goes against Christ and the WORD of God is no Christian.

Next you'll be claiming Christians are to accept polyandry, homosexual marriage, and bestiality.

Jesus warns us in his Revelation of false doctrines, churches, and spiritual leaders. The broad and winding road attracts many with proud hearts who would place themselves above God and their word and Law above His.

How many of those [false] churches you listed truly obey all of God's laws and Christs teachings?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Quite the opposite.



Quite an ignorant statement.



> To help an escaped slave to to spit on Jesus and the Law of God himself.



What an idiotic claim.



> it is to declare your own conscience superior to God's.



You're a complete moron and make it up as you go.



> It is to be like Lucifer and state that you shall be like the most high, deciding what is good and what is evil.



What a fool you are.

{The modern American abolition movement emerged in the early 1830s as a by-product of religious revivalism popularly known as the Second Great Awakening. Revivalistic tenets led abolitionists to see slavery as the product of personal sin and to demand emancipation as the price of repentance. Abolitionists recognized that slavery received moral support from racial prejudice, and they lobbied to overturn the nation's racially discriminatory practices.}

AAP Brief History of Movement

You fucking moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> What precentage of the pro-slavery movement do you think was christian?



Slavery was an economic principle, kind of like abortion. Most who had slaves may have claimed to be Christians, but their motive was the almighty dollar.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Er..tripoli, not tripli. Or Tripply.
> ...


 
Back to the dictionary with you, impudent 6th grader.

Tell me...have you ever written an adult paper? This means AFTER high school.

Tenet:

tenet
Definition
ten·et
[ ténn&#601;t ]
http://www.bing.com/caption/image/?bid=yCvB6rfJRFKJKg&bn=EDPG&form=DTPDIOTo hear the pronunciation, install Silverlight


ten·etsPlural

NOUN 

1. 
something accepted as important truth: an established fundamental belief, especially one relating to religion or politics "a basic tenet of Christianity" 
define tenet - Bing DICTIONARY

Religion
*re·li·gion*

_noun_ \ri-&#712;li-j&#601;n\
*Definition of RELIGION*

1
_a_ *:* the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_> _b __(1)_ *:* the service and worship of God or the supernatural _(2)_ *:* commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 

2
*:* a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 

3
_archaic_ *:* scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness 

4
*:* a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith 
Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So religion means a specific set of observances.
Tenet means a basic belief.

Do you understand the difference?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > What precentage of the pro-slavery movement do you think was christian?
> ...



The "No True Scotsman" argument????


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> > To help an escaped slave to to spit on Jesus and the Law of God himself.
> 
> 
> What an idiotic claim.



See Ephesians. I've already cited where Jesus tells us that slaves should always obey their masters with love in their hearts as they serve God himself.





> > it is to declare your own conscience superior to God's.
> 
> 
> You're a complete moron and make it up as you go.



No, that'd by you and the  false Christians. You pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to follow and ignore the bits you don't like. Not a jot or tittle? They throw aside entire passages and see fit to add your own words and thoughts as you see fit!

They hold up the first ten commandments of God's Law and claim they would uphold them, yet they refuse to obey the Law when it makes clear the penalty for those who transgress the Law.





> > It is to be like Lucifer and state that you shall be like the most high, deciding what is good and what is evil.
> 
> 
> What a fool you are.



Is slavery okay or no? God says it is. He told the Jews whom they may enslave and Jesus told slaves to obey their masters in good faith.

That you feel the need to 'reform' your church reveals that you know your religion is evil. You cling to small traces of old customs and titles for sense of legitimacy, but you are no more true Christians than Maxine Waters is a Liberal. You create your own Law, write your own moral code, and build your own custom religion like a pagan. Then you dress it up in selected portions of God's Word and build for yourself false churches so you can pretend your word and your Law is on par with God's. It is the pride of the heart describes in Isaiah.

It is the very pride of Lucifer himself.



			
				 Isaisah 14 said:
			
		

> 13For thou hast said  in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above  the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in  the sides of the north:
> 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.



Maybe you should _read_ your bible for once.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

JB, you're unhinged on this topic.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Except he's defined 'Scotsman' to mean 'Irishman'.

The bible is on the side of the anti-abolitionists.

Or, more accurately, the biblical position would to be to reform the slavery system, freeing slaves after 7 years and making a few other changes.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> JB, you're unhinged on this topic.


It's your bible.

Only you claim that it has any truth or merit to it.

Only you want to claim to be a Christian- an adherent of what's in [your favourite version of] this book.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Not a single Christian was ever an abolitionist..



Ah, so you're just a lying troll.

I got it.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Not a single Christian was ever an abolitionist..
> ...


Actually, I'm just someone who's actually ready God's word and knows what it says.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 
Well you have to take into account..what exactly was a slave in biblical times?

They could own property.
They had rights.
I THINK children were born free.....

They entered into their own slavery *contracts*.
And they were to be released from that contract every 7 years, regardless of whether or not they had fulfilled their side of the bargain. 

Many were in debt to their *masters*, and so worked as *slaves* to repay the debt, knowing that they could earn their release sooner...and that the property they earned or were given during their term of enslavement would be theirs to keep.

Biblical slaves are NOT parallel to slaves that came to us from an ISLAMIC slant....southern slaves came by way of the African slavetrade..which was NOT based upon the Christian and Hebrew understanding of slavery, but on the ISLAMIC and TRIBAL understanding of it. Whole different cup of tea.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Not a single Christian was ever an abolitionist..
> ...



In truth, I no longer give JB or Bodecea credit for even attempting to debate the topic.  It is obvious to me they are not even attempting to be factual in their comments and are intentionally playing the more serious members like a fiddle however dishonest they have to be to accomplish that.

I'm sure that is great sport for them.  But it leaves me quite bored.

Uncensored, Peach, Allie et al, I think we're all essentially on the same page here and agree on the basics even if we don't always use the same language to define them.  If we do get a more constructive discussion going I'll be back.

Ya'll all have a great day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> The "No True Scotsman" argument????



Nope.

I'm simply talking about motive. I make no statement as to whether slave holders were "true Christians" or not - their motive was money.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



They did not you lying troll. They split because those who formed the Methodists favored a strong federal government and the ones that formed the Baptists believed that it the states should have more power. 

History major my ass.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The "No True Scotsman" argument????
> ...


If they're guided primarily my financial (worldly) concerns, then they're not saved; they're not Christians.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> See Ephesians. I've already cited where Jesus tells us that slaves should always obey their masters with love in their hearts as they serve God himself.



So?



> No, that'd by you and the  false Christians.



Yawn, what a boring little troll.



> You pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to follow and ignore the bits you don't like.



I don't follow the Bible at all. I note that you base your idiotic trolling on misrepresentation of a single verse, though.



> Is slavery okay or no? God says it is. He told the Jews whom they may enslave and Jesus told slaves to obey their masters in good faith.



Yawn, what a dull-witted little troll you really are.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Is this kinda like the whole '*states' rights*- to have slaves' thing?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Actually, I'm just someone who's actually ready God's word and knows what it says.



No, you're just a troll.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

I gave you chapter and verse.

Don't like it? Take it up with God.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 9, 2011)

Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.  

Again, ya'll have a geat day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> I gave you chapter and verse.
> 
> Don't like it? Take it up with God.



There is no god, but there is a troll - you.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you chapter and verse.
> ...



Oh?
You can prove there's no god?

Why do you feel the need to lie about what a book says if you aren't a follower of that book?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

cuckoo.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

He said there's no god. i asked whether he can prove there's no god.

How's that make me cuckoo?

Or are you just mad and calling names because you have no intelligent response to the facts of what's in the book?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

No, you're just cuckoo when it comes to this topic. You get all bent out of shape and start jumping all over the place.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

All I did was post the facts.

I gave you what the book says, chapter and verse.

I pointed out the reality that the FF were Liberals and that both they and the abolitionists were guided by their own consciences and not by religious dogma.

You have no intelligent response and can offer no rebuttal against the truth, so now you resort to childish name-calling.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

There is no intelligent response to mouth-foaming lunacy.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Chapter and verse.

If you don't like it, take it up with your god.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



What am I not being factual about?


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.
> 
> Again, ya'll have a geat day.


 I guess that makes him feel like a man.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.
> 
> Again, ya'll have a geat day.



Neg repped me also


----------



## Foxfyre (May 9, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.
> ...



Im quite honored to be in good company then, dear.


----------



## peach174 (May 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Thank you


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Oh?
> You can prove there's no god?



I can prove there is a troll.

Hold up a mirror.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

So you _can't_ prove there's no god?

Are you recanting your earlier statement?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> What am I not being factual about?



Being sentient...


It's just a guess...


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > What am I not being factual about?
> ...


You think Bo's a program?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > What am I not being factual about?
> ...



Ah...isn't it interesting that you cannot come up with any examples...?   This is pretty much the playbook of those I have been debating in this thread....so you fit in very nicely.

Come in.

Say things without proof.

Insult.

Evade.

Insult some more.

Yep....you fit right in.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> You think Bo's a program?



More of a feral baboon.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Ah...isn't it interesting that you cannot come up with any examples...?



It was a spot on guess, though..



> This is pretty much the playbook of those I have been debating in this thread....so you fit in very nicely.



Bod, you decide if your post is consistent with the aims of your shameful party, if so you post it. Whether it is factual or not isn't in the equation.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You think Bo's a program?
> ...



Mad debating skills...at least you fit in here.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You think Bo's a program?
> ...


So you're saying babbons aren't sentient?

I'm not sure about that. I think the folk who study such things might disagree with you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Mad debating skills...at least you fit in here.



Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Ah...isn't it interesting that you cannot come up with any examples...?
> ...



Spot on vagueness....absolutely.

Spot on evasion....absolutely.

As I said, you fit in here with Allie et al.



> This is pretty much the playbook of those I have been debating in this thread....so you fit in very nicely.
> 
> 
> Bod, you decide if your post is consistent with the aims of your shameful party, if so you post it. Whether it is factual or not isn't in the equation.



Ah yes, that's right.   You can't picture others thinking on their own....pretty much shows how you function, doesn't it?


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)




----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> So you're saying babbons aren't sentient?



I have in the past contemplated whether comparing bodecea to a shit-flinging monkey was insulting?

But apologizing to a baboon is just too degrading for me..... Besides, I doubt the baboon would understand!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Ah yes, that's right.   You can't picture others thinking on their own....



You lack the faculty for actual thought.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Baboon always looks like it's spelled wrong.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Baboon always looks like it's spelled wrong.



bodecea always looks like she thinks wrong, if at all...

C'est La Vie...


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, that's right.   You can't picture others thinking on their own....
> ...



And you have evidence of that.........how?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



This........board!


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Specific examples please......(of course, you will not because you cannot)


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.
> 
> Again, ya'll have a geat day.



Well, i seem to have been mistaken when I told California Girl and Ravi that I don't believe that JB is a misogynist. I apologize to those ladies.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Any one of your dumb ass posts would suffice as proof of your lying and stupidity in any court of law.

Have you found a map of WWII Europe with a country called Third Reich labeled on it yet?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

I hear it was founded on Christian tenets.

Just ask The Torrie Cult.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Specific examples please......(of course, you will not because you cannot)



Specific examples of your inability to formulate a rational thought?

I nominate the post I'm replying to......


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Specific examples please......(of course, you will not because you cannot)
> ...



Don't get sucked into her game man.

She will ask for proof; then ignore proof once given and continue demanding proof until finally you just say fuck it and give up; then she will declare victory.


And some claim she isn't a dishonest poster


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Actually, she's the only one who claims that.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, she's the only one who claims that.



I beg to differ, if you go read the biggest liar thread, quite a few defended her. Just amazing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Whatever. I haven't seen lots of people stepping up in any thread she's active in saying "She's telling the TROOF!"


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Whatever. I haven't seen lots of people stepping up in any thread she's active in saying "She's telling the TROOF!"



So you're suggesting that they were merely supporting her in that specific thread, for who knows what reason? 

I can live with that explanation.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Map

Third Reich - Wikimedia Commons

PzG - Third Reich Nazi Adolf Hitler ww2 HQ!

Nazi GAU Map of Third Reich Germany

http://www.stonybrook.edu/libmap/coordinates/seriesb/no2/b2.pdf

Just some of the links on only the FIRST page when I googles Third Reich maps.

Now another reason for you to call me rude names, "TheBrain".


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



NONE of your maps label the Third Reich as a nation.

fail again.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



They do....but I knew you would be chock full of denial.   That's what you did before, that's what you do now.   Changing nics doesn't change the way you are.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, well JB gallantly neg repped me so now I KNOW I am on the right track.
> ...




You really are a stupid pig, aint ya?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

I can't believe you guys are trying to say that Hitler *founded* Germany. Or that Germany *changed* into another country...just for the duration of Hitler's reign.

Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

'you guys'?

So Bo is now multiple male entities?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

"Guys" is asexual.


----------



## TheBrain (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "Guys" is asexual.



Yep, pretty much a west coast think to call a group of people you guys no matter the sexual make up of that group. Much like yall in the south, or youse guys in the northeasat.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

"Guys" is the old "Dude!"


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)




----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I can't believe you guys are trying to say that Hitler *founded* Germany. Or that Germany *changed* into another country...just for the duration of Hitler's reign.
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa



hitler was very proud of germany and there was no way he was changing it to anything else.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

Precisely. He didn't found a country.


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Precisely. He didn't found a country.



he didn't found it. he rebuilt it. or I should say restored pride to it for a period and motivated the people to become productive.  Germany existed before hitler


----------



## AllieBaba (May 9, 2011)

I know that. Someone please explain it to Bod.


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I know that. Someone please explain it to Bod.


 Pointless.  she doesn't listen.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Precisely. He didn't found a country.
> ...



Did he overthrow the old government?  Yes he did.

Did he change the form of government?  Yes he did.

Did he and his party write a new constitution?  Yes they did.


So, explain to me how that is different than what OUR founders did with the old English colonies?


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



actually he didn't overthrow the old government. he attempted to and it faiied. he was arrested for that.  He ws appointed chancelor by hindenberg. he didn't overthrow  him.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Is a nation defined by its people, its flag, its borders, or something else?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



DId he overthrown the old government once he was in a position to do so...Yes he did.


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



no, he was appointed chancelor.  he fostered pan germanism and gaind the support of the majority of the german public. hisparty members won positions to parliment through elections. they didn't overthrow anything. Through elections he controled the executive and legislative branches, much like the obama admin did in 2008.  how is that any different?  They used their combinded power to make changes, funding abortion, stem cell research, that helathcare fiasco.  had they been a coheasive unit they would have pushed a lot more through and changed the face of government.  look at the government here in the 60's. libs controlled the executuve and legislative and took the opportunity to stack the judicial.  Libs and the warren court re interpreted the constitution and in effect basically re wrote it.  given the opportunity in 2008 team obama would have dome the same.


----------



## 8atman (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Well, if you can list those Christian principles that our country was founded on....you will be the first.   Have at it, my friend.   List them.   Give us at least a few.



Please, allow me.


*Macro / Systemic Implementations:*

Principle: Man created in Gods image.
Document: Declaration
Bible: Genesis 1:27; 1 Corinthians 11:7

Principle: Because of this (see above), he has been given 
unalienable rights by his Creator
Document: Declaration
Bible: Proverbs 31:8; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 17:19-20;
Mark 12:30,31; Acts 10:34; Galatians 3:28

Principle: Left to his own devices man is sinful and self-
serving
Document: Constitutional Separation of Powers / Checks & Balances
Bible: Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 33:22

Principle: Rule of law supercedes authority of man
Document: Declaration, Constitution
Bible: Matthew 23:2-4


*Micro / Specific Implementations:*

Principle: Importance of self-governance
Document: First, Second, Ninth Amendments
Bible: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 6:1-3

Principle: Restitution
Document: Federal, state restitution laws
Bible: Leviticus 6:1-5; Numbers 5:5-7; Matthew 5:23-26

Principle: Religious freedom
Document: First Amendment
Bible: 2 Chronicles 36:22,23; 1 Timothy 1,2

Principle: Freedom of speech
Document: First Amendment
Bible: Psalm 119:44, 45

Principle: Levy of taxes
Document: Constitution
Bible: Matthew 22:19-21; Romans 13:6

Principle: Church tax exemption
Document: First Amendment
Bible: Ezra 7:24

Principle: A militia composed of the citizenry
Document: Second Amendment
Bible: Nehemiah 4:13, 14

Principle: A standard of weights and measures
Document: Constitution
Bible: Leviticus 19:35, 36

Principle: Only a natural-born citizen may become President
Document: Constitution
Bible: Deuteronomy 17:14, 15

Principle: Judges, major and inferior courts
Document: Constitution
Bible: Exodus 18:21, 22

Principle: Testimony of witnesses
Document: Constitution
Bible: Deuteronomy 17:6


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Is a nation defined by its people, its flag, its borders, or something else?



Apparently, unless it's a brand new country that is in a place which never had a country before...it doesn't count....in some wild excuse......

Ironically, the whole point of me bringing up Hitler and the Third Reich was to point out that what a leader(s) says they stand for and what they and their government really do with their power can be two totally different things.   Actions speak much louder than words.   Hitler may have SAID he was a Christian and SAID that his country was based on Christian tenets.....the doing was something totally different...totalitarianly different, we might say.


...and then we got bogged down in the "Oh, the Third Reich isn't really a country...nana nana boo boo".


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2011)

8atman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if you can list those Christian principles that our country was founded on....you will be the first.   Have at it, my friend.   List them.   Give us at least a few.
> ...



This whole concept of a Creator....it is a Christian tenet?    Or a generic tenet?
(remember, the assertion is that these are CHRISTIAN tenets)



> Principle: Left to his own devices man is sinful and self-
> serving
> Document: Constitutional Separation of Powers / Checks & Balances
> Bible: Jeremiah 17:9; Isaiah 33:22



No offence, but that quote seems to speak directly AGAINST the concept of individual freedom and the concept of less government.  Besides, they are OT quotes...Jewish tenets maybe...Christian tenets...a tad too early for Christianity.



> Principle: Rule of law supercedes authority of man
> Document: Declaration, Constitution
> Bible: Matthew 23:2-4



Is that uniquely Christian too?



> And
> *Micro / Specific Implementations:*
> 
> Principle: Importance of self-governance
> ...



Don't have the biblical quote in front of me so will pass at this time.




> Principle: Restitution
> Document: Federal, state restitution laws
> Bible: Leviticus 6:1-5; Numbers 5:5-7; Matthew 5:23-26



Leviticus is Jewish...don't have the other quotes in front of me so will pass at this time.



> Principle: Religious freedom
> Document: First Amendment
> Bible: 2 Chronicles 36:22,23; 1 Timothy 1,2



Is religious freedom a Christian tenet?   over 1500 years of Christianity seems to put the lie to that.



> Principle: Freedom of speech
> Document: First Amendment
> Bible: Psalm 119:44, 45



Jewish tenet if any religion.



> Principle: Levy of taxes
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Matthew 22:19-21; Romans 13:6



Is that a unique tenet of our unique country....or something that is found in all countries old and young as a given?



> Principle: Church tax exemption
> Document: First Amendment
> Bible: Ezra 7:24



That one I will give you....but is that a tenet of our founding fathers?   When did church tax exemption actually start?   (and I disagree in it, btw)



> Principle: A militia composed of the citizenry
> Document: Second Amendment
> Bible: Nehemiah 4:13, 14



OT again.



> Principle: A standard of weights and measures
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Leviticus 19:35, 36



OT again



> Principle: Only a natural-born citizen may become President
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Deuteronomy 17:14, 15



OT again



> Principle: Judges, major and inferior courts
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Exodus 18:21, 22



OT again



> Principle: Testimony of witnesses
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Deuteronomy 17:6



YOu may have a case for our country being founded on Jewish law....


I would like to thank you for actually answering the question instead of pretending that you did in some long distance post.


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

Did someone just claim Christians came up with standard weights and measures and this was a new idea?


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

You cite Jesus talking about the taxes the romans levied and claim he came up with principle of taxes?


----------



## Spoonman (May 9, 2011)

bodecea said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Is a nation defined by its people, its flag, its borders, or something else?
> ...



Geez, for a minute there I thought you were talking about the obama administration  

well hitler certainly didn't embrace christian values during his tenure


----------



## JBeukema (May 9, 2011)

8atman said:


> Principle: Importance of self-governance
> Document: First, Second, Ninth Amendments
> Bible: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 6:1-3



 1 If any of you  has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly  for judgment instead of before the Lords people? 2  Or do you not know that the Lords people will judge the world? And if  you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial  cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 


Self-government means never turning to the State to enforce law?

Vigilantism is a Christian tenent?




> Principle: Religious freedom
> Document: First Amendment
> Bible: 2 Chronicles 36:22,23


22 In the first year of  Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken  by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a  proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:  23 This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: 
   The  LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and  he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah.  Any of his people among you may go up, and may the LORD their God be  with them. 








> Principle: Freedom of speech
> Document: First Amendment
> Bible: Psalm 119:44, 45



44 I will always obey your law, 
   for ever and ever. 
45 I will walk about in freedom, 
   for I have sought out your precepts. 



> Principle: A militia composed of the citizenry
> Document: Second Amendment
> Bible: Nehemiah 4:13, 14



13So in the lowest parts  of the space behind the wall, in open places, I stationed the people by  their clans, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. 14And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people,(A) "Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord,(B) who is great and awesome,(C) and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes."



Nobody before the Jews ever fought to defend their homes?


> Principle: Only a natural-born citizen may become President
> Document: Constitution



*200 BC* *The Code of Hammurabi. *One of the earliest law codes, which standardized weights and measures,  commercial transactions and contracts, and criminal penalties. Payments were based on fixed amounts of silver or grain. About this time metal became used as a medium of exchange in the Middle East.

Damn you're stupid.

Why do you people have be so dishonest to try and make your point?



> Principle: Testimony of witnesses
> Document: Constitution
> Bible: Deuteronomy 17:6


[SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1]

3.  If a man has borne false witness in a trial, or has not  established the statement that he has made, if that case be a capital  trial, that man shall be put to death. 


4.  If he has borne false witness in a civil law case, he shall pay the damages in that suit. 
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Code of Hammurabi


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

None of that is relevant to the question...was the US founded upon Christianity.

Of course it was. You can piss and moan about all the horrible things that you think have happened because of Christianity, but it doesn't change that simple fact.


----------



## JBeukema (May 10, 2011)

So the FF were liars, Allie?


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



LOL the "history major" strikes again. WHat a dumb shit, she doesn't even understand that Hitler became part of the existing government, his attempted coup prior to that landed his ass in prison.

She is the dumbest person EVER.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



You are absolutely right...tho he did SAY he did.   And that was the point...what someone says and what someone does can be two different things.   The proof is in the actions.

Which brings up back to the ACTIONS of our founders.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well, well, well....so you are inferring that once Hitler became part of the existing government he LEFT IT the way it was......


(Who's the dumb one?)


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

What does that have to do with founding Germany, nutbar?

Cuz that's what you said he did. He *founded* a country.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What does that have to do with founding Germany, nutbar?
> 
> Cuz that's what you said he did. He *founded* a country.



The Third Reich...it did not exist before Hitler.   But please, feel free to go on.....it sure beats showing us ANY of those so-called Christian tenets you say our country was founded on....at least we have one poster who tried....more than can be said for you.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

He was elected to a leadership position in a country that already existed. The THIRD Reich was the THIRD of that country.

Moron.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Did someone just claim Christians came up with standard weights and measures and this was a new idea?



C'mon, JB...give 8atman credit for at least giving us some ideas instead of whining and deflecting  and insulting and evading.

As I said...he seems to have given a better case for the U.S. having been founded on Jewish tenets rather than Christian tenets since most of his biblical quotes are from the OT.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> He was elected to a leadership position in a country that already existed. The THIRD Reich was the THIRD of that country.
> 
> Moron.



BAHAHAHA, the "history major" doesn't understand the difference between a nation and a government. 

She thinks when Hitler declared his NAZI party was the Third Reich of German power that he founded a new country. LOL what a dumb fuck.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



She did  get the" authoritative  wiki one "
"Wiki" where   they let you  makeup up stuff and post as facts.
This thread is the 5 reich.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Something tells me Bode "thei history major" is a regular contributor to that vast cesspool of knowledge known as Wiki.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> They do....but I knew you would be chock full of denial.



Uh no, they don't. Several show Deutschland (that would be Germany, for the leftists in the audience.) Most just show the territory conquered by the Third Reich. Reich roughly means "reign." 

If you have a valid point, why do you need to lie?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "Guys" is asexual.



So is bodecea....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> DId he overthrown the old government once he was in a position to do so...Yes he did.



You really should have stuck out 7th grade and tried to go to high school.

Your perspective on the world would be vastly different.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DId he overthrown the old government once he was in a position to do so...Yes he did.
> ...



Did you miss the post where she indicated she has a college degree in history?


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

I love how easy it is to get you folks to showcase exactly who and what you are.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Bode should be arrested for exposing herself in this thread.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Bode should be arrested for exposing herself in this thread.



Yeah....that pretty much is the kind of thinking you advocate, isn't it.....Connie?


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

What's amusing is that she trashed Christianity at the turn of a hat, but defends a religion that would KILL her just for who she is.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> What's amusing is that she trashed Christianity at the turn of a hat, but defends a religion that would KILL her just for who she is.



link?

pointing out that you and the other nitwits are wrong isn't trashing christianity

sorry


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > What's amusing is that she trashed Christianity at the turn of a hat, but defends a religion that would KILL her just for who she is.
> ...




Okay so we understand that in YOUR world anyone who points out Bode's umm intellectual challenges is a nitwit. 

Good for you.


----------



## sinister59 (May 10, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar
> 
> ...



the US was founded on freedom , christanity is not in favor of freedom , they backed and justified slavery . not freedom , four fathers liked freedom for white people . not the church .


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Did you miss the post where she indicated she has a college degree in history?



Bod???

ROFL

I missed it. Bod has never been to college unless she is the janitor there. People can claim anything on the internet. Actual educational levels are pretty apparent in exchanges. Bod is not an educated person.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I love how easy it is to get you folks to showcase exactly who and what you are.



Quoel!

So; who and what am I, exactly?


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



no, in my world, people who can't read the words that are written are nitwits.

like you.

sorry, nitwit.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Did you miss the post where she indicated she has a college degree in history?
> ...



Oh yes, she was adamant about it, right before she launched an argument that The Third Reich was a country.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I love how easy it is to get you folks to showcase exactly who and what you are.
> ...



an anonymous asshole on a message board, exactly.

no need to thank me


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Oh, I have read the words that are written. Funny that quite a few people consider Bode to be exact same things that I do. But I'm sure you're right, we're all nitwits and you and she are complete geniuses.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> the US was founded on freedom , christanity is not in favor of freedom , they backed and justified slavery . not freedom , four fathers liked freedom for white people . not the church .



You are an idiot.

The concepts and notions of liberty are founded on Christian doctrine. Absent Christian liberalism, the world we live in would more closely resemble Iran or Indonesia. It was the radical concept that men are answerable only to god that led to the development of ideas of personal liberty.

You and bod; uneducated, poorly read, poorly spoken; it is this that leads you to the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> an anonymous asshole on a message board, exactly.
> 
> no need to thank me



Lots of reasons to laugh at you, though....


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And it doesn't take much to get him to prove it either.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



i'm no genius, but i can read.

you should try it some time, hack.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> > the US was founded on freedom , christanity is not in favor of freedom , they backed and justified slavery . not freedom , four fathers liked freedom for white people . not the church .
> ...



nothing say liberty like the inquisition. 

idiot


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > an anonymous asshole on a message board, exactly.
> ...



absolutely

did you have a point?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> i'm no genius,



There is more truth to that than in all the posts you have proffered prior to this, combined....



> but i can read.



You're not much for writing, though.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm no genius,
> ...



i take into account the considerable limitations of my audience.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> nothing say liberty like the inquisition.
> 
> idiot



That would be "says," cretin.

You are an ignorant buffoon who is interested only in smearing the hated opposition. You have virtually no knowledge nor anything approaching intellectual curiosity. As such, it is pointless to attempt to educate you on the philosophical underpinnings of the enlightenment. Suffice it to say, that despite your abject ignorance, Martin Luther is one of the most influential forces in the formation of the concepts individual liberty.

Men of mind developed that which you mindlessly attack.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > nothing say liberty like the inquisition.
> ...



oooh, you got me on a typo. nice work 


you left out an *of* in your screed 


why would i hate some anonymous asshole on a message board?

i do believe you're projecting, little man.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sinister59 said:
> ...


 
"the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people. 
I suggest to read Edward Peter's _Inquisition_ for the most up to date analysis of the topic, including the myths that have arisen surrounding the inquisitions. 
*Correction* The Spanish Inquisition was state ministry, not papal organization. Blaming Popes for deeds of Spanish Inquisition is incorrect. However kings of Spain used Dominicans (catholic order) as judges etc. because clergy (especially mentioned monks) were generally far more educated than ordinal people." 


Read more: Answers.com - How many people died from the Inquisition

People think the Inquisition took place on a global scale. It didn't.

Neither was it a Christian movement. It was a few politicians using the church to carry out their dirty work. And a scant handful of people died.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> absolutely
> 
> did you have a point?



That you are uneducated, dull witted and ignorant. 

In other words, you are the typical USMB leftist...


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Did the Spanish Inquisition occur in the nation of Third Reich?


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely
> ...



del's a leftist? 

apparently, you can neither read nor comprehend.

knowing you're a moron is bi-partisan.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> i take into account the considerable limitations of my audience.



No need to worry about that. Your own, rather considerable limitations, vastly exceed any you may encounter from an audience here....


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely
> ...



yeah, that's me all right- a typical leftist



keep swinging, corky


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


 
Sheesh..did I post in the wrong thread?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

how funny...sorry about that...


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i take into account the considerable limitations of my audience.
> ...



demonstrably untrue
QED

sincerely,

a typical USMB leftist


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



that's nice allie. 

too bad i'm not speaking of the spanish inquisition because then you'd be relevant


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




No True Scotsman.....



The Inquisition....a department of the roman catholic church would be shocked to hear that they weren't Christian.   And then they would have burned you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> oooh, you got me on a typo. nice work



I "got you" on your abject ignorance.



> why would i hate some anonymous asshole on a message board?



You hate the opposition in the same mindless fashion that a Raiders fan hates Charger's fans.

You are a mindless cretin. Your shameful party defines you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Neither was it a Christian movement. It was a few politicians using the church to carry out their dirty work. And a scant handful of people died.



What the cretin cannot grasp is that liberalism and the enlightenment arose from the Protestant reformation. The Catholic church is irrelevant to the issue - detrimental in fact.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > oooh, you got me on a typo. nice work
> ...



This is the only card Uncensored can play.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


 
They only burned when it was politically expedient.

And since nobody in my family has ever spent any time in Spain (except on vacation) I think I would have been pretty safe.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > oooh, you got me on a typo. nice work
> ...




which shameful party would that be, corky?

you should never use an apostrophe to pluralize a word; i'm surprised an anonymous asshole of your vast erudition doesn't know that.

well, not really.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



you're a fucking idiot. History major my ass. The Spanish Inquisition was in NO way related to the Roman Catholic Church. 

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AllieBaba (May 10, 2011)

hey it was in this thread.
Jerks!


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



LOL Haven't you claimed to be an English teacher and you don't even know the difference between pluralizing a word and making a word possessive?


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



as i stated earlier, fuckwit, this whole *reading the words that are there* thing is really helpful. 

if you'd done that, you would have seen that there is no *spanish* between *the* and *inquisition* in the post you attempted to rebut.

fuckwit is as fuckwit does.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

jillian said:


> del's a leftist?



No doubt he is a "centerest," as would be Kim Jong Il to you. 



> apparently, you can neither read nor comprehend.



Obviously, else I would not pillory the morons of the left.



> knowing you're a moron is bi-partisan.



Yet here I am, demonstrably better educated and vastly more intelligent than you. (Which ain't saying much!)

Jillian, you prove the saw: The lower the IQ, the further to the left....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> No True Scotsman.....



It's good that someone showed you references on logical fallacy.

It's sad that you can't grasp the appropriate application of them...


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > del's a leftist?
> ...



I COMPLETELY disagree with you about Jillian. She is UBER biased, but she is not stupid, and is actually a pretty nice person to talk to .


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



no, i haven't. 

yes, i do.

do you really think that's what he was attempting?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> I COMPLETELY disagree with you about Jillian. She is UBER biased, but she is not stupid, and is actually a pretty nice person to talk to .



I've not encountered that side to her. All I have seen is the mindless recitation of leftist mantras from her.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Hey fail tard, Read Allie's ORIGINAL post that Bode responded to, that you in fact quoted. SHE was talking about the Spanish Inquisition, Bode simply shortened it to Inquisition, the dumb bitch had NO idea that there were in fact two different Inquisitions.

Failure is yours.


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > del's a leftist?
> ...





centerest?

is that like bestest?

you're the gift that keeps on giving, corky.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...





And there was no such thing as pograms and anti-semetism by Christians either.....


In fact...that deserves a


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



actually, there were four. 

multiple fail


----------



## elvis (May 10, 2011)

I am the bestest.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Yes I do think that is what he was attempting, clearly he was talking about raider's and charger's fans. Just as clearly he made one possessive and not the other; so that was an error, but he was not pluralizing them.

No harm no foul. I though you had said that in a thread earlier. My mistake I guess.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> no, i haven't.
> 
> yes, i do.
> 
> do you really think that's what he was attempting?



It's a mystery, I was posting about those who define themselves through their association with a "team" (or party as may be the case.)

Whatever COULD I have meant?

I make plenty of grammatical errors, everyone does. Keep watching, there is little doubt you'll catch a few. It won't suddenly render your posts intelligent, but it might make you feel better.

(Besides, *I* know how to capitalize proper nouns!)


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



what is the name of the oakland, ca nfl team?

is it the oakland raider or the oakland raiders?

fail










again

i admire the irony inherent in your userid.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I actually only know of three, but I'm happy to admit that no one can possibly know everything.


----------



## TheBrain (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...





You're correct, so of course the possessive form would be raiders' my bad again. But that doesn't mitigate your own errors that you apparently aren't man enough to admit to.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> centerest?
> 
> is that like bestest?



Quite a bit, sparky.



> you're the gift that keeps on giving, corky.



I try.

So post something centrist for us?


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > no, i haven't.
> ...



i see. i make a typo, and it's proof of my lack of intellect.

you do the same, and you make up excuses.

got it. 

have you decided what my party is yet?

hint: it's not the charger's (sic)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

elvis said:


> I am the bestest.



One of my usual lines is "unintentional irony is just the bestest!"


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > centerest?
> ...



how's this, corky?​


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> i see. i make a typo, and it's proof of my lack of intellect.



The typo had nothing to do with it, as I said at the time.



> you do the same, and you make up excuses.
> 
> got it.



What excuse?



> have you decided what my party is yet?



Boring? Leave by 8?



> hint: it's not the charger's (sic)




Ohhh, say something "conservative," for us....

LOL.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> how's this, corky?​




Not bad, not bad at all...


----------



## del (May 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i see. i make a typo, and it's proof of my lack of intellect.
> ...



you have nothing, huh?

shocker


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 10, 2011)

del said:


> you have nothing, huh?
> 
> shocker



About what? You said nothing.

Shirley, you must have noticed.


----------



## JBeukema (May 10, 2011)

bodecea said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone just claim Christians came up with standard weights and measures and this was a new idea?
> ...


Or on the Code of Hammurabi


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No not Jewish law - Christian Law
Jews worship on Sat.
Christians worship on Sun.
Our Consitutions in Article I  Sec.7 says,
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law
Sunday is being excluded, and Sunday is the Christian's day of worship.
Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...



We have laws saying we cannot work and have to go to church on Sunday?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, but the Constitution honors the Christian sabbath.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

No, I'm saying Sunday is the Christian day of worship and Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.
Sunday worship- Christian tenet


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> No, I'm saying Sunday is the Christian day of worship and Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.
> Sunday worship- Christian tenet



Not all of Christianity, my friend.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Honor?   by saying "sundays excepted" that is honoring a sabbath?   What else have you got that indicates it's a sabbath?


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

I can see it now....We are a Christian nation because of the words "sunday excepted."


----------



## AllieBaba (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
That's dishonest. You know very well it's to honor the sabbath.

I hate that sort of shit. It's like the "who, ME?" deflection that snotty little kids use.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 11, 2011)

You asked for tenets. To sneer at every one proferred is just evidence of your hatred and your dishonesty.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes.

Gods Word declares, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Ex. 20:8-11). [1]

This Scripture, known as the fourth commandment, has received very little respect among professing Christians during the twentieth century. It has been misunderstood, disregarded and even maligned in many pulpits throughout the land. Dispensationalists teach that the fourth commandment (with the whole Old Testament law) has been set aside by Christ. Many others accept nine of the commandments as binding, yet reject the fourth as ceremonial in nature. They regard the Sabbath as a purely Jewish institution which is no longer binding on the New Testament church. There are others who accept the binding nature of the Sabbath yet fail to recognize Christs authority as Lord of the Sabbath (Mt. 12:8) to change sabbath observance from the seventh day to the first day of the week (e.g., Seventh-day Adventists). The orthodox Christian position regarding what is required in the fourth commandment is best set forth by the Westminster Larger Catechism: The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lords day. [2]

The Christian Sabbath: Examined, Proved, Applied


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You asked for tenets. To sneer at every one proferred is just evidence of your hatred and your dishonesty.



No, no, no.   I think it is a tremendously compelling argument....(sundays excepted) that our Founders really really meant for this to be a Christian nation.  It stands alone and clear.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I can see it now....We are a Christian nation because of the words "sunday excepted."



Hey stupid, no one has claimed this was a "Christian nation". The claim is that this nation was founded on Christian principles and more than enough evidence has been provided that proves the claim is accurate.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm saying Sunday is the Christian day of worship and Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.
> ...



No. of course not
7th day Adventists have Saturday, but they weren't founded till 1893
Jehovah Witness have Sat, also but they weren't founded till 1879
Church of God was 1897,and United Church of God was 1995
All of them were founded way after the Constitution was written.
The Christian day of worship was Sunday at the time the Constitution was written.
Sunday is a Christian tenet.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I can see it now....We are a Christian nation because of the words "sunday excepted."
> ...



Then, it is VERY clear that we are founded on Christian principles because of the words "Sundays Excepted".   Ipso Facto.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > You asked for tenets. To sneer at every one proferred is just evidence of your hatred and your dishonesty.
> ...



No - we are talking about the nation being founded on Christian tenets. Never a Christian Nation.
What part of - we have freedom for all religions or no religion are you not wanting to get?


----------



## sinister59 (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



but the sabbath on Saturday , I've things to do .


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> but the sabbath on Saturday , I've things to do .



A fresh 40 awaits you an it ain't goan drink itsef.....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Couple that with historical documents and our FF's own words. Then yes it is very clear.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Nope.   This is it.   The "holy" grail to prove that this is a nation founded on christian principles....the words "sunday excepted".


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's good to see you finally conceded to the fact.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

How long will it take some of you to realize Bode is a dishonest piece of shit who wouldn't admit to being wrong under ANY circumstances. She is to be ridiculed not engaged in serious debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Nope.   This is it.   The "holy" grail to prove that this is a nation founded on christian principles....the words "sunday excepted".



You're a complete idiot.

I can't imagine anyone here gives even the slightest weight to the nonsense you spew.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> How long will it take some of you to realize Bode is a dishonest piece of shit who wouldn't admit to being wrong under ANY circumstances.



Bod tries to comprehend how a statement will affect her party. If the statement will promote the democrats, she posts it. If it will harm the democrats, she denies it.

Truth, lies or in-between are all the same to bod. She serves the party, it is the ONLY consideration she makes.



> She is to be ridiculed not engaged in serious debate.



Agreed!


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > How long will it take some of you to realize Bode is a dishonest piece of shit who wouldn't admit to being wrong under ANY circumstances.
> ...



She only serves herself. There are PLENTY of Democrats out there who are willing and able to engage in serious debate and admit that their "side" doesn't have all the answers.  Being a democrat does not equal being intellectually dishonest.

Bode is NOT one such person. She is the most disagreeable, dishonest, disgusting, pathetic piece of shit I have ever tried to have a conversation with.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

She admitted that we were founded on Christian principles didn't she?


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> She admitted that we were founded on Christian principles didn't she?



Well, Peach....as you can see, it was not about the topic of the debate with them.   They like to go personal.   You, I can respect.   You know how to debate.   Them....they can only evade, attack personally, and....dare I say it....lie.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> She admitted that we were founded on Christian principles didn't she?



Where did she admit this? I must have missed it, and if so ill apologize for MY error.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

Yep! that's what I thought you wanted.
An Old Fashioned tit for tat debate and you got it from me.
And I proved my point.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Right Here. Brain


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Right Here. Brain



In context, her words were dripping with sarcasm.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Right Here. Brain
> ...



See, Peach....it was never about the topic with them.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I read it and thought the  clearly indicated sarcasm as well and that in fact Peach misread it.

So you admit, finally after 180 pages, that you were wrong and that in fact the USA was founded on Christian principles?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Right Here. Brain
> ...



Yes it was, but it's still a concession.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I am saying that the words "Sundays excepted" in Article I of the Constitution is solid, undisputable evidence that the Founders meant our new country to be founded on Christian tenets.  Doesn't get any more rock solid than that.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So by extension you admit that for well over 100 pages you have been wrong?

IF that is the case, then I retract my statement where I said that you are incapable of, or unwilling to admitting to error

Welcome to adulthood.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I know.
How anyone can read sarcasm in what you typed beats me. 
In an old Fashioned debate you have attacks and counter attacks and you prove your statements and I think that is what we did. Didn't we?
You proved it to me, when you defended my statements being cut off in quotes from others.


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

The definition of a whistle - to expose a wrongdoing in the hope of bringing it to a halt.


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> See, Peach....it was never about the topic with them.



So, you will state plainly that the United States WAS founded on Christian Principles?


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



She did right here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> She did right here.



I'm shocked.


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > She did right here.
> ...


it's a troll, her fingers were crossed or something


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

with her and she admitted it.
She kept asking for absolute proof of Christian tenets in the constitution, and Sunday excluded was it.  
End of debate.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Christians worship on Sun.



So Seventh Day Adventist aren't Christians?



> Our Consitutions in Article I  Sec.7 says,
> If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law
> Sunday is being excluded, and Sunday is the Christian's day of worship.
> Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.



Only the very beginning of that run-on sentence exists in COTUS


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> the Constitution honors the Christian sabbath.



No, it honours the Universal Roman Sabbath. Nowhere did Jesus say 'Remember the Sabbath? Well, now it's on the first day of the week and not the last'


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> No, I'm saying Sunday is the Christian day of worship and Saturday is the Jewish day of worship.
> Sunday worship- Christian tenet


Wrong again. The Sabbath is not a 'day of worship'. It is a day of _rest_. You are to worship, praise, and serve YHWH _every_ day.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sunday is a Christian tenet.


The worship of the sun is a Christian tenant?

Sun day
Moon day 
tiu's day
wotan's day
thor's day
friday's day
saturn's day


Yes... clearly, the use of the common calendar and common societal practices at the time indicates this is a Christan (pagan?) nation founded on the principles of the religion by which the calendar and societal practices were inspired.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Which words are those?

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

peach174 said:


> with her and she admitted it.
> She kept asking for absolute proof of Christian tenets in the constitution, and Sunday excluded was it.
> End of debate.




They won't accept it, Peach.   They have too many pre-conceived notions and have invested too heavily into going personal.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > the Constitution honors the Christian sabbath.
> ...



Jesus said,

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath".

Scripture never mentions any Sabbath (Saturday) gatherings by believers for fellowship or worship. However, there are clear passages that mention the first day of the week. For instance, Acts 20:7 states that on the first day of the week we came together to break bread. In 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul urges the Corinthian believers on the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income. Since Paul designates this offering as service in 2 Corinthians 9:12, this collection must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly. Historically Sunday, not Saturday, was the normal meeting day for Christians in the church, and its practice dates back to the first century.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Oh, and before someone tries to dismiss those words as 'pandering'-  they don't appear in the surviving Arabic version of the document- only in the version Americans were to read.

Maybe they were thinking of you, Rav


----------



## peach174 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > with her and she admitted it.
> ...



Yep


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> They won't accept it, Peach.   They have too many pre-conceived notions and have invested too heavily into going personal.



Looks like your fellow fascist, Jbeukema is the one who won't accept it...


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

_"Now be it known, That I John  Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said  Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and  confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said  Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States,  I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all  persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other  citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty  and every clause and article thereof."_​


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Go back and read the thread and you will find many instances. 


Treaty of Paris 1783

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. 

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc......


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


The first day of the week. The first workday of the week. The day after Sabbath.

It's not that complicated


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


So the FF were liars talking out both sides of their mouth and their words mean nothing?


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> fascist





DO you even know what that word mean?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



You're not very bright are you?


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

> From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote  they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted,  only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were  ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense,  founded on the Christian religion."



Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



you got that one right


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunday is a Christian tenet.
> ...



Holy shit you are stupid. The days were named LONG before Christianity came around. Were Christians supposed to rename the days of the week so that Sunday was now JesusDay to them so as not to confuse you?

Nope, that's not what happened at all. What DID happen is that Roman calender was kept even after the Roman Empire switched to being a Christian Empire.

Read a damned history book


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



he's still struggling with see spot run


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

I see the Hounds are still baying.


----------



## 8atman (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > Principle: Left to his own devices man is sinful and self-serving
> ...


How so? I believe youre referring to the Jeremiah citation, no? That verse comments on the heart of man, as referred to in the above Principle. The Founders were concerned about the public servant serving only himself.



			
				bodecea said:
			
		

> Besides, they are OT quotes...Jewish tenets maybe...Christian tenets...a tad too early for Christianity.


The entirety of Mosaic moral code is restated by Jesus --directly, indirectly, practically, and even conceptually. Additionally, my post is far from being an exhaustive list of Scriptures that could be cited, including the NT.

Nonetheless, I believe there is a bit of traction to what you say. The Founders borrowed very much from the OT, the book of Deuteronomy in particular for the government's framework since that book sets forth the framework of the Hebrew nation. It is probably most correct to say that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian concepts.




			
				bodecea said:
			
		

> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hardly. More like about 2000 years of men violating the verses I cited, and several more.




			
				bodecea said:
			
		

> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See above.




			
				bodecea said:
			
		

> Is that uniquely Christian too?


It doesnt have to be unique. The whole notion of who got there first is false reasoning. Here is the argument in a nutshell: This concept was implemented first by **fill in the blank**, so it is not a Christian concept.

That is like trying to say, for example, that the US Constitution is not based on English Common Law. It is instead based on the Laws of Aethelberht of Kent --which predates English law and implemented certain precepts first. Therefore, by this reasoning, the Constitution has no basis in English law.

This is, of course, ridiculous. The FF implemented what they were familiar with and the works that most influenced them --in this case, English Common Law. If any given concept(s) was written and/or implemented before, that does not mean thats what the Founders were influenced by or even aware of.




			
				bodecea said:
			
		

> I would like to thank you for actually answering the question instead of pretending that you did in some long distance post.


No problemo.


----------



## 8atman (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Christians?? Youre about 1500 years too early. (For those who may not know, Leviticus 19:35 and 36 is what is being commented on here. Also, for those who may not know, Leviticus is in the OLD Testament.)

What does new idea have to do with anything? Does this verse prescribe and endorse the adoption of a fair, standardized method of weights and measures? Does the Constitution implement precisely that? Were the Founders familiar with and claim to use the OT? I rest my case.




			
				JBeukema said:
			
		

> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, Im quite sure ancient Babylonian law was foremost on the Founders minds.

However, (you know, since you brought it up) document examiners believe Mosaic Covenant Law and the Hammurabian Code both may derive from a common, older source. This means that the Hammurabian Code is probably a derivation of pre-mosaic laws and codes as given to mankind during the Patriarch Dispensation.


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2011)

Explaining that Treaty of Tripoli is a puzzlement tho.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.

The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Explaining that Treaty of Tripoli is a puzzlement tho.




Several things the FF did are puzzling. Proving that while VERY smart, they were not infallible. For example, they could clearly have been a little clearer about the second Amendment. They probably SHOULD have set our system up to just outright ban lifetime politicians ( I think we can agree that there intent was for the average person to have a chance to serve then return to normal life after their time was up, and not for it to be a person's only career ever.) Among other things.


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> _"Now be it known, That I John  Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said  Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and  confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said  Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States,  I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all  persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other  citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty  and every clause and article thereof."_​






			
				Spoonman said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -88 reputation points from Spoonman.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...






You really hate facts that much?


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

Reichwingers have no facts, so they resort to pathetic rep attacks.

You people aren't to be taken seriously.

Letting you idiots vote is destroying this country.


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > _"Now be it known, That I John  Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said  Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and  confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said  Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States,  I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all  persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other  citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty  and every clause and article thereof."_​
> ...



lmao you hypocritical neg repping douchebag. you wouldn't know a fact if you tripped over it.  which i notice you frequently do. 

Hi, you have received -221 reputation points from JBeukema.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:


Regards,
JBeukema


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Reichwingers have no facts, so they resort to pathetic rep attacks.
> 
> You people aren't to be taken seriously.
> 
> Letting you idiots vote is destroying this country.


so jackass you didn't neg me earlier?

Hi, you have received -221 reputation points from JBeukema.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:


Regards,
JBeukema



Sorry genious but you just stuck you foot in you mouth.    LMAO   


















Smooth one beukema


----------



## JBeukema (May 11, 2011)

I neg people when they lie or act like total douches and idiots.


You neg people when the facts aren't to your liking.

You were negged for being a childish troll. Don't like it? Then grow the fuck up.


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> I neg people when they lie or act like total douches and idiots.
> 
> 
> You neg people when the facts aren't to your liking.
> ...








you really are an ignorant fool aren't you


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Reichwingers have no facts, so they resort to pathetic rep attacks.
> 
> You people aren't to be taken seriously.
> 
> Letting you idiots vote is destroying this country.



See, this is how stupid you are . You equate conservative to being stupid, when in fact stupid is just stupid and has nothing to do with political ideology.

You're ate the fuck up with the stupid. 

I do agree morons shouldn't be allowed to vote, starting with those who are stupid enough to believe that only "their side" can be smart.


----------



## Spoonman (May 11, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Reichwingers have no facts, so they resort to pathetic rep attacks.
> ...



can you belive this idiot? he negs me for my opinion in a topic and conversation he has nothing to do with.  so i neg him back and he starts whining about me negging him.   well he showed in print, goid old black and white what a hypocritical moron he is.


----------



## TheBrain (May 11, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



LOL then has the nerve to say that others are stupid.

Just let it go, write JB off as a lost cause and move on bro.


----------



## Colin (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



You may have changed your online name, but I see nothing else about you has changed! What a surprise. Not!


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Reichwingers have no facts, so they resort to pathetic rep attacks.
> ...




Was it you who said I should be arrested?


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Arrested for what? Being gay???????? Ma'am I have consistently said that as an American you have the right to be gay if you wish....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> I neg people when they lie or act like total douches and idiots.



You neg people when they oppose the fascist ideals you promote. You're a little goosestepping democrat and a pile of shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Was it you who said I should be arrested?



Ah, lying again.

You lie a lot, bod.

(The remark was that bod would be arrested and worse by the Muslims she promotes.)


----------



## peach174 (May 12, 2011)

Yeah JB
We have the right here in America to freedom of religion.
You have the right to believe in the Samaritan Pentateuch and I have the right to believe in the Hebrew Pentateuch.
Others have the right to not believe in any God or anything else in between.
This is what makes this nation great.
Who are you to Judge? God says judge not least you be judged.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Was it you who said I should be arrested?
> ...



Do you want to stand by that interpretation?   Because I'm going back to check and link right now.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Bode should be arrested for exposing herself in this thread.



Yep.....here it is.....now, let's look to all the bizarre intepretations and denials of today.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Was it you who said I should be arrested?
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html

Is that what it says, Uncensored?


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html

Is that what you meant when you said I should be arrested, Connie?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Do you want to stand by that interpretation?   Because I'm going back to check and link right now.



You mean you're going to spam the board with irrelevant bullshit in hopes of distracting from the fact that you got caught lying again.

But by all means, show TheBrain calling for you to be arrested...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Yep.....here it is.....now, let's look to all the bizarre intepretations and denials of today.



Holy fuck but you are a moron....


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.....here it is.....now, let's look to all the bizarre intepretations and denials of today.
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html


Is that what you've got to say after YOU got caught lying, Uncensored?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Is that what you've got to say after YOU got caught lying, Uncensored?



ROFL

What a fool you are.


----------



## del (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want to stand by that interpretation?   Because I'm going back to check and link right now.
> ...



he did


----------



## AllieBaba (May 12, 2011)

She said I proposed religious harassment, too.

Bod doesn't know the meaning of the words she likes to use. She just thinks, hey, this sounds cool, I'll say THAT!


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what you've got to say after YOU got caught lying, Uncensored?
> ...



Well, I would have been a fool if I had thought that you had any morals or honesty about you....but not to worry.   I never thought you had any of that in you.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> She said I proposed religious harassment, too.
> 
> Bod doesn't know the meaning of the words she likes to use. She just thinks, hey, this sounds cool, I'll say THAT!



See, Peach?   It was never about the topic of debate.   It was never about Christian Principles....it was only about personally attacking me.  Allie is proving that again.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *She said I proposed religious harassment, too.*
> 
> Bod doesn't know the meaning of the words she likes to use. She just thinks, hey, this sounds cool, I'll say THAT!



If you are talking about me....go ahead and link where I said that....and we can discuss it.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That was a fucking joke, and had NOTHING to do with your being gay, which anyone is free to read on ANY of the posts I have made on the subject that I don't advocate arresting gays, or abusing them, or mistreating them, or ostracizing them in anyway.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> he did



Look, I realize that sarcasm is something aimed at creatures with higher brain functions - you as a leftist wouldn't grasp it....

It was what sentient creatures call an "off-hand remark."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Well, I would have been a fool if I had thought that you had any morals or honesty about you....but not to worry.   I never thought you had any of that in you.



You think I'm a democrat?

Sorry, not the case.

You DO grasp that no one called for you to be arrested, right? I mean, you're just flinging feces like the feral baboon you are - you're not REALLY so fucking stupid that you think someone called for your arrest, right?

Which is lower bod, your intellect or your integrity? (It's going to be close!)


----------



## del (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I would have been a fool if I had thought that you had any morals or honesty about you....but not to worry.   I never thought you had any of that in you.
> ...



at least she has some of each


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Take your bullshit somewhere else. Claiming that others have no integrity or intellect while advocating that Bode does  is a joke.


----------



## del (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



fuck off, poseur. 

you have even less of each than whatsisname


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> at least she has some of each



And you're proud of the fact that you don't, huh?


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > he did
> ...



Is that the lie you're going to run with, Uncensored?


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I would have been a fool if I had thought that you had any morals or honesty about you....but not to worry.   I never thought you had any of that in you.
> ...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html


> I mean, you're just flinging feces like the feral baboon you are - you're not REALLY so fucking stupid that you think *someone called for your arrest, right?*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html


> Which is lower bod, your intellect or your integrity? (It's going to be close!)



Regardless of how low it may be....I'm looking a LOOOOOOOONG way down at yours.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



" oh my name is in orange letters, so I'll question the intelligence of others, even though I bring nothing of intellectual value to the board myself."

Piss off.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html

Maybe you can say I need to be arrested again.....and then deny you said it, Connie.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



He is 100% correct. I did NOT advocate for you being arrested. I joked that you should be arrested for exposing yourself in this thread, as in exposing your dishonest and your lack of honor.

I very SERIOUSLY doubt that you even for a second thought that I was advocating that you be charged with a crime and thrown in jail.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



You taunting a mod who never brought his mod status into this thread, Connie?


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html


> I joked that you should be arrested for exposing yourself in this thread, as in exposing your dishonest and your lack of honor.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html



> I very SERIOUSLY doubt that you even for a second thought that I was advocating that you be charged with a crime and thrown in jail.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html

Not seeing the smiley face or winking face there at all.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




I HEREBY APOLOGIZE TO BODE FOR NOT MAKING IT CLEAR ENOUGH TO HER THAT I WAS JOKING AND IN NO WAY WANT HER TO BE FUCKING ARRESTED FOR BEING GAY,STUPID,DISHONEST, OR JUST DOWNRIGHT VILE.



Hope that soothes your hurt feelings.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Was that painful?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Is that the lie you're going to run with, Uncensored?



Oops, you missed.

Maybe if you scamper atop the tire swing?

Damn bod, even as a shit-flinging feral baboon you're a failure...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html



So you don't grasp it? Or you're just lying about it?

Hard to tell with you, you're both dishonest and stupid...


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the lie you're going to run with, Uncensored?
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html

Go ahead out on that limb, Uncensored.....but you might want to look behind you....You're all alone now.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/3625238-post2371.html
> ...



And even if I were, I'd be hundreds of times more honest and smarter than you are showing yourself to be.    That's what I enjoy about your posts....you are so accomodating in showing just how low a creature you are.    I never have to nudge much.   You step right into those pitches.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Was that painful?



Your stupidity and dishonesty are painful.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Painful? No. Unnecessary ? Yes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Go ahead out on that limb, Uncensored.



Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead out on that limb, Uncensored.
> ...



Yep...I can always tell when you reach rock bottom and can't refute anything I say.....you pull out your baboon card.    You pull it out a lot.   You hit rock bottom a lot.

I'd be lying if I said I feel sorry for your lack of integrity et. al.    You are quite willing to show off how little you have in the way of morals and intellience.....so, I have no problem giving you the opportunity to do so.


----------



## FYI (May 12, 2011)

Look at your money, it's "In God We Trust" on it, not "In allah".
If the U.S. was not founded, and operated under Christian principles or tenets, then why is Christmas a national holiday? Thanksgiving??
Feel free to give me any money that offends you because of it's print.
You can work Christmas & Thanksgiving if you like also, standard pay of course.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

FYI said:


> Look at your money, it's "In God We Trust" on it, not "In allah".



Has that phrase been on our money since the Founding of our Republic?


> If the U.S. was not founded, and operated under Christian principles or tenets, then why is Christmas a national holiday?



Actually, we usually get more than xmas off...as we also get new years off.   Is new years a religious holiday?



> Thanksgiving??



Thanksgiving is a religious holiday?   Turkeys saying their prayers?  



> Feel free to give me any money that offends you because of it's print.



Why?   That phrase doesn't make our money any more valuable...or any less valuable......a point I don't think you meant to make.



> You can work Christmas & Thanksgiving if you like also, standard pay of course.



Thank you...when I was in the Navy (working for the federal government, btw), I almost always had duty on Christmas and Thanksgiving...no extra pay...because I was perceived to be single.  That is almost 21 years of Christmas/Thanksgiving duty.   (I like the year we caught a mouse and hung him up on the board by his tail and wrote "Twas the Night Before Xmas and all thru the House, not a creature was Stirring, not even a mouse.....damn well better not on MY watch!"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Yep...I can always tell when you reach rock bottom and can't refute anything I say.....



Refute?

You've said nothing - you are flinging shit - nothing more.

We laugh at you - a few of the other leftists try and defend you, but you're a clown. Everyone here views you as a clown.


Now entertain us with more of your stupidity.

Dance baboon, dance!


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Yep...I can always tell when you reach rock bottom and can't refute anything I say.....
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 12, 2011)

FYI said:


> Look at your money, it's "In God We Trust" on it, not "In allah".
> If the U.S. was not founded, and operated under Christian principles or tenets, then why is Christmas a national holiday? Thanksgiving??
> Feel free to give me any money that offends you because of it's print.
> You can work Christmas & Thanksgiving if you like also, standard pay of course.


 
The only people that contest the truth are history revisionists.

People like Bod, who claim to be experts (bffffgahahahahaha) while showing over and over they don't grasp the most basic concepts such as *fact*, *truth*, *lie*, *proof*, *foundation*, and *law*...and repeatedly fly in the face of verified information and fact themselves because of it.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> FYI said:
> 
> 
> > Look at your money, it's "In God We Trust" on it, not "In allah".
> ...



That's a lot of words, Allie....got any actual examples to go with them....or are you going to avoid proving your comments as you usually do?

Oh, and don't forget to neg me again for pointing out inconvenient truths about you and your.....ahem......facts.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead out on that limb, Uncensored.
> ...


 
That's a funny turn of phrase that cracks me up every time...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > FYI said:
> ...


 
If you ever point out a truth of any kind, I will pos rep you.

Until then, I'll continue to neg rep you as the liar you are.

P.S. the examples have been posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > FYI said:
> ...



Do you really think that there is anyone posting in this thread who hasn't figured out your "debate" style yet?

Here's a recap for those who haven't.

Bode: you are wrong, prove what you claiming
Anyone who is talking to her: Okay here is the proof.
Bode: post proof
Anyone: I just did
Bode: see, no proof
Anyone: I just posted proof you idiot
Bode: See no proof
Anyone: Oh fuck it, you aren't worth it.
Bode: I win, victory is mine. Honesty and integrity be damned.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's a funny turn of phrase that cracks me up every time...



And you just KNOW that bod doesn't get it!


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > That's a funny turn of phrase that cracks me up every time...
> ...



calling her a monkey is lame dude. As is attacking her sexual perversion. She's a stupid, hypocritical, liar. Enough said. 

But hey, she did admit that the US was founded on Christian principles, so credit where credit is due.


----------



## del (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



tissue?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> calling her a monkey is lame dude.



Not at all.

Bod is a shit flinger. Bod doesn't debate, she doesn't discuss. Bod flngs shit. In short, she is a feral baboon.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Ah...I see you are going with "Evasion" today.    Must be your favorite debating device...you use it so often.



> Until then, I'll continue to neg rep you as the liar you are.



You mean "as the liar you are"....even tho I (Allie) can never come up with examples of your lies.....   Please be accurate with your comments.



> P.S. the examples have been posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted. And posted.


[/quote]

No they haven't.   You know it.   I know it.   Everyone knows it.   That's what you do....make an accusation and when asked for proof you go [paraphrased]  "Oh, I've already done that and will not do it again."


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Yes, my eyes are moist from tears of laughter at how pathetic you are. But please give me one that you have NOT used to sop up your vaginal fluid. Thanks.


----------



## del (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



you really oughtta consider another line of shirk


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



 


Oh, I have to remember THAT one!


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



And you should consider tyring to post insults which are grammatically correct. Shirk is a verb not but a noun.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



WHOOOOOOOOSH!    Right over TheBrain's brain.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Oh I got it, it was just stupid, grammatically incorrect, and unfunny. yep that Del, he's a genius. 

Now quick suck up to him some more.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Not everyone is a syncophant like you've tried to be, Connie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Not everyone is a synchophant like you've tried to be, Connie.



Nor is everyone a sycophant, as you most assuredly are....


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone is a synchophant like you've tried to be, Connie.
> ...



What?  You use up your quota of the word "baboon" for the day?


----------



## Colin (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Isn't it you who normally does the pissing. Over women if I recall! Names may change, but some things never do. Why not take your own advice, loser.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I am neither named Connie nor know what that word you just called me means. Is that a phantom who is in  sync with another phantom? I really don't know.....


----------



## Colin (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



You should be nominated as biggest liar. Oh you were. Currently running second!


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

Colin said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Are you talking about in the thread in the flame zone that has already been debunked as complete bullshit by quite a few posters? LOL who gives a fuck.


hmm as it turns out I am actually only in second place in number of posts in that thread. The count has NOTHING to do with votes for anything.  Guess someone couldn't read the thread.


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



"TheBrain".....indeed.


----------



## TheBrain (May 12, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



YOU misspelled the word you moron.  the word you wrote means nothing.


----------



## Colin (May 13, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Urinated over any women lately?


----------



## TheBrain (May 13, 2011)

Colin said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...




LOL is that some lame ass attempt to deflect from the fact that you couldn't grok the thread you were reading last night? 

You seem to be fixated on my urine.


----------



## bodecea (May 13, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Let's see now....who brought up urinating on a girl in a bar in the first place a while back?


Oh, that's right....that information was beaten out of you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 13, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What? You use up your time on Merriam-Webster.Com for the day?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 13, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> I am neither named Connie nor know what that word you just called me means. Is that a phantom who is in  sync with another phantom? I really don't know.....



Del is "teh centerest!"


----------



## del (May 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > I am neither named Connie nor know what that word you just called me means. Is that a phantom who is in  sync with another phantom? I really don't know.....
> ...



i've been waiting for you to tell me what that means.

enlighten me, please. i never saw it in print until you used it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 13, 2011)

del said:


> i've been waiting for you to tell me what that means.
> 
> enlighten me, please. i never saw it in print until you used it.



So you really DIDN'T come over from AWE? 

We had a poster, a lefty like you, who used the same avatar you use and had similar mannerisms to you. Like you, he claimed that he was a "centrist," so a thread developed where he was not just in the center, but the most centered one could be. He wasn't just center, he was the absolute "centerest" person in the whole, wide world! Add a little leet and we have "teh cenerest."

"Feral Baboon" comes from Coultervakia. It just means a poster who does nothing but fling shit.

Bodecea is a classical feral baboon.


----------



## bodecea (May 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i've been waiting for you to tell me what that means.
> ...



  the Baboon Card.   Sure beats having anything intelligent to say, Uncensored....doesn't it?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 13, 2011)

bodecea said:


> the Baboon Card.   Sure beats having anything intelligent to say, Uncensored....doesn't it?



You are the epitome of a feral baboon. No one exceeds your baboonedness!






The few, the proud, the flea infested....


----------



## Colin (May 13, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Same old ConHog. Still a pathetic whiner. Some things never change, do they, loser.


----------



## TheBrain (May 13, 2011)

Colin said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...



Laughing at you for being illiterate is in fact not whining.


----------



## bodecea (May 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > the Baboon Card.   Sure beats having anything intelligent to say, Uncensored....doesn't it?
> ...



So, that's what you think of Marines.    Color me surprised.


----------



## 8atman (May 17, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.


Or, rather, that would be one theory.

So, in other words, youre under the impression these accounts didnt exist until they were written down. On top of that, youre also assuming the records we have are the very first and there is nothing that predates it. No one knows these things. You understand were talking about ancient and pre-history, right? You understand we can only make guesses about the documents weve uncovered, right?

Are you aware of how document examination works, especially for ancient texts? Did these accounts (Biblical and Sumerian) never exist until the moment someone bothered to write them down? (Seems pretty unlikely to me, but hey....you know, its probably just my tuna sandwich.) Or, did they exist before they were written down? For how long? Hmmm....

More to the point, which account was the original and which is the derivation? Was the original account set into stone first, or the derivation?

You dont know. And neither does anyone else.




			
				JBeukema said:
			
		

> The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.


Oh? Lets test that theory, shall we?

There is a very big difference with the quality and detail of information between the Bible and the Sumerian accounts. In particular, the items that stand out most are the moral and spiritual character of the Patriarchs vs. the kings, as well the completeness of the lists of the patriarchs/kings. Genesis portrays God as very, well, God-like, while the mythological and pagan accounts usually portray the gods with very human personalities. They are little more than a soap opera of squabbling humans with super-powers. Additionally, the book of Genesis goes into great detail regarding the struggle of man with sin and the aftermath of The Fall. Genesis highlights those who made an effort to please God, and gives many details about mankind separate and apart from the Patriarchs.

The Sumerian account has none of this detail. Perhaps most telling, the Sumerian kings list is incomplete as compared to Genesis Patriarchs.

And it doesnt stop there; very similar items could be pointed out regarding the Genesis Flood account vs. the Sumerian.

Now, generally speaking, the account with fewer details and lesser-quality information is assumed to be the derivation. [whisper]Dont look now, but that aint the Biblical accounts.[/whisper]

That being said, Ill repeat what I said at the start: these are ancient documents and among the very first writings of man we have; no one can say much of anything with any sort of scientific certitude regarding which accounts derive from which. If anyone tells you any different, or tries to sell you a more definitive statement, then tell them you usually get dinner and movie first.


----------



## 8atman (May 17, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Explaining that Treaty of Tripoli is a puzzlement tho.


Oh, I agree --puzzling in ways you may not even realize.

There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence in any language and there has not been for well over 200 years. The English version ratified by Congress was a copy of an Arabic version, which in itself was a copy of the Arabic original (which we do not have).

Article 11 contains the non-Christian nation phrase. There is no Article 11 in the Arabic copy. While it is not known where Article 11 comes from, it is suspected John Barlow himself inserted it into the treaty on his own accord. (Barlow was anti-Christian.)

At that point in time, George Washington, John Adams, and the Senate probably would have signed a document saying the moon was made of Swiss cheese if it meant saving the lives of American hostages at the hands of the Barbary Coast pirates. They werent going to take the time to re-draft the treaty and send it through all the diplomatic channels again.

The Spanish version of the treaty actually refers to Christian nations (meaning the United States in this case).

Even Barlows English version states several times, Praise be to God.

Perhaps most telling, when the treaty was re-negotiated in 1805 and 1806, the non-Christian phrase had been conspicuously removed.

Finally, the Treaty of Tripoli is not a founding document for the United States of America. By contrast, The Treaty of Paris, by which the government of Britain formally recognized the US as an independent nation and predates the Treaty of Tripoli, very much is a founding document.

*The Treaty of Paris, 1783, opens with these words:*
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God...


----------



## 8atman (May 17, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I see the Hounds are still baying.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

bodecea said:


> So, that's what you think of Marines.    Color me surprised.



I said nothing of Marines, we're talking about YOU, little feral one...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

8atman said:


> Oh, I agree --puzzling in ways you may not even realize.



Wow, that's going to leave a mark...



Well done.


----------



## peach174 (May 18, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.
> 
> The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.



You have proof of this?
Did they find some new archeology digs that prove the Sumerian Pentateuch came before the Hebrew Pentateuch?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2011)

peach174 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.
> ...





I wonder which creation myth JB is referring to?  The one which is one of the oldest manuscripts we have of the ancient Hebrews making it one of the world's oldest manuscripts we have period, or the one that is among the most recent manuscripts that we have before what Christians refer to as the "Old Testament" was first canonized and closed about 200 years prior to the birth of Christ?


----------



## peach174 (May 18, 2011)

I got no idea


----------



## bodecea (May 18, 2011)

peach174 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.
> ...



Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.



Well there you go;

Who could ask for more?


----------



## peach174 (May 18, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Ur was of the Chaldean's


----------



## Foxfyre (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.
> ...



Many modern Bible scholars now question whether the Ur in the Abraham story was indeed the southernmost Ur on ancient maps which would be in Sumerian country or was one of several other places known as Ur, most particularly one near Haran in Babylon.  A careful reading of the text makes the Ura near Haran more likely, most especially when it refers to Abraham leaving and crossing the Euphrates into Canaan.  If he was in the northern area, he indeed would have needed to cross the Euphrates.  If in the southern(Sumarian) Ur, that would have been an illogical route and he would not have crossed the Euphrates.

Interesting stuff to speculate and not really pertinent to the story other than technical interest.  Whether from Sumaria or Babylon, regional pagan gods were worshipped and no doubt Abraham and his family were part of that.  But after his encounter with YHWH (God) all that was moot and a new people and a new religion was born.

Christians embrace the story of Abraham and the context of the Old Testament because it is impossible to understand much of the New Testament without a good grounding in the Old Testament.  All that stuff was common knowledge to the folks of that time and they were writing for each other and not for the benefit of us thousands of years later.


----------



## 8atman (May 19, 2011)

Yes and no. Most of the NT was written to congregations Paul had visited and on the surface level, that is probably how those epistles were viewed. On the other hand, the apostles were not unaware of their own divine inspiration and would have been cognizant their writings had the potential for being Scripture. In particular, the book of Revelation was prophecy written down both to warn and uplift the church regarding future events. It was certainly understood to be divinely inspired and Scripture from the beginning.



Foxfyre said:


> I wonder which creation myth JB is referring to?  The one which is one of the oldest manuscripts we have of the ancient Hebrews making it one of the world's oldest manuscripts we have period...


People like to refer to the Sumerian code since it is believed those documents predate OT manuscripts. They then jump to the conclusion that the OT must borrow from it. The fact of the matter is all these accounts were orally passed from generation to generation before being written. Who happened to write them down first is in no way a sign of which account is the original and which is the derivation. It is only indicative of...who happened to write them down first. (This is all assuming we even have the very first copies that were ever written down. We don't know that, either.)


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 19, 2011)

As soon as the ink dried on the Constitution most of the states passed laws banning mandatory tithing, taxes to build and maintain church buildings and property, all government aid to religous schools, reglious tests to hold public office and no establishment of religion. 
Why did they do that?


----------



## 8atman (May 19, 2011)

And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.


----------



## 8atman (May 20, 2011)

_As soon as the ink dried on the Constitution most of the states passed laws banning mandatory tithing..._

Id like to invite anyone reading this to contrast what is being suggested above with this:

On the third of December, 1803, President Jefferson (almost two years **after** his Danbury Baptist letter) ordered the extension of the 1787 Congressional land act that designated the use of federal land for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity. Thats right, promoting Christianity at the behest of the federal government. Exactly how does that jive with what were spoon-fed today on this topic? Why didnt Jefferson view this as a violation of his own separation of church and state?

And it doesnt stop there. Jefferson ordered the same thing for the Wyandotte Indians in 1806. Then he did it again for the Cherokees in 1807.

Apparently the ink on the Constitution had not yet dried.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 20, 2011)

8atman said:


> And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?
> 
> Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.



You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around. 
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?
> ...



I look at it a bit differently.  The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion.  That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent.  The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things.  There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion.   Jefferson's  'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days.  It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop.  And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom.  But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 20, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...



If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Using tax dollars to promote religion SHOULD be beaten back every time it is offered.  Why?  Because once you start rewarding (with money) or punishing (by withholding money) any religious group or project, the government has established religion.   To allow tax exemptions for all religious and charitable institutions, to allow religious symbols, customs, celebrations and holidays and a 'day of rest' on Sunday, without mandating observance of such days doesn't cost a dime of the people's money nor does it establish religion.  But it sure promotes religion in a non coercive manner.

Look at how much of those kinds of freedoms we have lost over the last 30 or 40 years.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
Slavery...Christian tenets.
Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.

Yep.   You're right, Allie....the FACTS of our nation's early years has Christian tenets written all over it.


----------



## TheBrain (May 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



That's strange, I thought you had already agreed that proof was given that this country was founded on Christian tenets and principles. 

Which is of course not the same as saying Christians are perfect nor is our country so one can't say well our country has had some awful things in it's past, so it can't be Christian.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

Er...what is it you're saying, exactly? Because that post makes exactly zero sense and is apropos of nothing.


----------



## TheBrain (May 20, 2011)

Truth of the matter. SOME equate believing homosexuality is a sin to bashing homosexuals, so they don't want to admit that ANYTHING good could have came from a religion that defines homosexuality as a sin, even though that religion does NOT advocate bashing , or otherwise harming gays.

it really is that simple. It all comes down to a single issue for these people. It was proven in another thread when SEVERAL posters accused people of "bashing" gays merely because we gave our opinion that homosexuality is a sin, despite the overwhelming proof that have objected to bashing those who commit the sin.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Please take the time to look at my post.....where am I saying that we are not founded on Christian tenets?


----------



## TheBrain (May 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



read my post and please notice that I was asking a question.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



What am I saying?   I'm saying that our ACTIONS as a nation have Christian tenets written all over them.  De Facto Christian Tenets.


----------



## TheBrain (May 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Excellent point. The next time a gay person does something wrong I will point out that it is obviously a gay tenet.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Indeed you did...a question that is quite easily answered by actually LOOKING at my post....all about Christian Tenets.    

So...to say the least...for you to even need to ask a question about a very clear post is puzzling.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Oh...we are referring to just ONE person now?   So....those Christian Tenets I listed were the actions of only one person?   Really?   Then those history books are all wrong.


----------



## TheBrain (May 20, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Are you even capable of having an adult conversation? You know damn good and well that mistreating women , just for example, is not a Christian principle. Certainly it was accepted by nearly everyone, including the women themselves in most cases, that they were second class citizens, but that is NOT the same as saying it was a Christian tenet.


Don't even bother responding because I'm not playing your merry go round pretend facts aren't facts bullshit.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

Either we were founded on Christian Tenets....or not.   It is hypocritical to pick and choose.


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I said?


----------



## Iridescence (May 20, 2011)

OMGorsh


----------



## 8atman (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.



First of all, point out for us who in this thread made the claim that the Constitution was NOT an answer to and a defeat of the Church of England? That statement answers nothing in my last post, or any other claim made in this thread (that I am aware of). Do you understand the difference between the Church of Englands relationship to the monarchy, and a republic founded upon Judeo-Christian morals and precepts? Seriously, I dont mean any offense to you or to get in your face, but Ive seen you confuse things of this sort over and over in this thread.

Secondly, while the Constitution certainly was a start regarding the church/state relationship, it was faaaar from ENDING (as you say) that discussion. The First Amendment was not ratified until 1789 and was not adopted until 1791; this was nearly halfway into Washingtons entire service as president. Do I even have to mention Jeffersons struggle with these issues? He left office in 1809. Was this issue all wrapped up in a nice, neat, little bow at that time?




Gadawg73 said:


> If they were to promote religion.. .


If? If??

Permit me to reiterate a part of my post you chose to completely ignore. The purpose of the 1787 Congressional land act was for the federal government to designate the use of federal lands for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity. I dont see any ifs there; do you?

Keeping in mind your claim of no governmental promotion of Christianity, answer the following:

George Washington instituted Thanksgiving as a federal holiday in 1789. For what purpose?

In 1854, Congress passed a resolution including verbiage defining what they felt was of extreme importance to our governmental system. What was so important?

Would you like something a tad more current? A joint resolution of the House and Senate officially sanctioned 1983 as The Year of the ______?




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> ...then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
> Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.



Once again, no offense, but theres so much error there its hard to know where to start.

First of all, the Founders were struggling with specific issues relating to governmental aid to religious institutions, not overarching issues of religious foundations in government. Jefferson and Madison believed that state financial aid to religious institutions would inevitably lead to another Church-State. Patrick Henry, among others, believed that as long as one denomination was not favored over the over, there was nothing wrong with state aid. (More on this in a bit when I address the second half of your post.) In other words, this has nothing to do with, for example, declaring that man has unalienable rights because he was created in Gods image and implementing a system guaranteeing that ideal.

Quite the contrary, the Constitution- and post-Constitution-era culture universally believed, and quite strongly at that, that one of governments duties was to promote Christianity and moral living amongst the citizenry. Any attempts to implement some sort of God has no place in government ideal would have been viewed as nothing short of repugnant, and met with universal indignation. In fact, this view of yours did even to begin to gain traction until the mid 1960s.

Regarding the second half of your statement, you claim [Henry and supporters] stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off, is a wildly gross distortion. The notion that Patrick Henry and those that agreed with him stood up against the others with the statement we are founded on Christian tenets, and the others, allegedly disagreeing with that specific statement (as you imply), thusly ran them off is not found in any history book or meeting minutes I am aware of. This incident, as you have represented it here, quite simply NEVER HAPPENED. As I explained earlier, they disagreed over the extent to which religious institutions should receive government aid (and would struggle with this issue, by the way, through several administrations). They were specifically concerned with how government aid might affect 1) The rise of another Church-State (which some territories had already created), and 2) The governmental promotion of one Christian denomination over the other. Thats it. Thats all. It was in no way some sort of religion has no place in government ideal as you have attempted to represent here.




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
> Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing.


Oh? Is that so? Ill try this one more time. Im going to repeat a question you completely avoided last time: What was the Founders view of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?


----------



## 8atman (May 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
> Slavery...Christian tenets.
> Landowners only voting...Christian tenets.
> Stealing land from natives...Christian tenets.
> Women having little or no rights...Christian tenets.


Moses was guilty of murder. Many times he showed a lack of faith in God. God became so infuriated with him, Moses was specifically forbidden from ever setting foot in the Promised Land and died after he and the Hebrews came within sight of it. Aaron, Moses brother and governmental assistant, dishonored and distrusted God. The Israelite people, because of their own disobedience and lack of faith, were sentenced by God to wander the desert for forty years.

Therefore, the Jewish nation was not founded on Jewish law.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

8atman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Whiskey Rebellion....Christian tenets
> ...



Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

8atman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
> ...



We do not have Divine Law.
We have civil law. 
The monarchies declared their power from divine law. We do it differently per THE CONSTITUTION.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

8atman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
> ...



Your claim that the Founders were arguing over which religous institutions would get aid and which would not is absurd. FALSE AND A BOGUS FRAUD ARGUMENT.
They declared NO religous institution would get ANY aid and you know it.
Your entire post is full of opinion and no fact.
Show me where GOD is in the Constitution and where government can give legal aid to any religous institution. 
James Madison STATED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
"Religion itself may become a motive to PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION"
Read it and weep. The Founders SPOKE PUBLICLY they wanted NO PART of any religion anywhere in government. 
Madison led the charge THAT NO TAX be passed, as your buddies tried that, to aid ANY RELIGOUS EFFORTS, and he prevailed. Founders sure were smart, weren't they?
First draft by Madison was the State of New Hampshire's Constitution wording on religion:
"Congress shall MAKE NO LAWS TOUCHING ON RELIGION."


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
What does your opinion of Christianity have to do with anything?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Another retard who doesn't know what "founded" means and apparently confuses it with "law".
Who also doesn't understand that adhering to Christian tenets does not mean establishing a theocracy.

It's impossible to argue with intellectually backwards people.


----------



## JScott (May 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...



The founding fathers were the enlightened ones of this country. They were part of a movement called the "Age of Enlightenment". Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This movement goes against religious doctrine. It is also called the "Age of Reason".


----------



## bodecea (May 21, 2011)

When it comes to our Founders, it is important to remember that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.


----------



## Dot Com (May 21, 2011)

The founding documents were indeed influenced by the enlightenment & > a few of the drafters/ Framers were Deist's as opposed to Christians. This doesn't discount the contributions made by the early settlers of whom many were Christians of one sort or another.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

JScott said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Another retard who cannot discern the difference between a Christian foundation and a theocracy.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

For the millionth time:

The founding fathers stated, repeatedly, that they were founding a country upon Christian principle. If you want to argue against that then you must prove that they were intentionally misleading everybody in their circles, and you must find a way to discredit the Declaration of Independence and deny it is a founding document.


----------



## Dot Com (May 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> For the millionth time:
> 
> The founding fathers stated, repeatedly, that they were founding a country upon Christian principle. If you want to argue against that then you must prove that they were intentionally misleading everybody in their circles, and you must find a way to discredit the Declaration of Independence and deny it is a founding document.



I love you like a sister ;-) BUT where R U getting that info? Look at my above post. There's a diff between the 'Founders/initial settlers' and the 'Framers'. Also, the Declaration of Independence is intentionally non-sectarian. See- "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Have you ever heard of a "Deist"? 
Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Deism in the United States
> 
> In the United States, *Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals)* played a major role in creating the principle of religious freedom, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.
> Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[41] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe).


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

Irrelevant.


----------



## Dot Com (May 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Irrelevant.



Do you know what was unusual about Thomas Jefferson's personal Bible? The guy who drafted and wrote the Declaration of Independence? I'm going to have to start charging you for giving you these mini-classes


----------



## JScott (May 21, 2011)

alliebaba said:


> irrelevant.



k.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 21, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > For the millionth time:
> ...



For purposes of clarification, the Framers of the Constitution have been referred to as the Founding Fathers for more than two hundred years now.  When I or any of our members uses the term "Founders" we are referring to those men who signed onto the Declaration of Independence, saw the country through a five-year bloody war with England in order to gain our freedom, and then spent the next seven years hammering out a Constitution that would make us the most free, most prosperous, most innovative, most productive nation that world had ever known.

*Founders in the context of this thread is an abbreviation of "Founding Fathers" and means those men of the Declaration and Constitution and not the first settlers who were British citizens and not yet Americans.*

Atheists have long tried to make a case that Christian influence was not that much a factor in the founding of this nation by pointing to the Founders who were Deists.  The writings we have of those amazing men, however, simply don't reflect any point of view other than a Christian one:



> "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."--George Washington
> --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
> 
> "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."--John Adams
> ...



There are lots and lots and lots more.


----------



## TheBrain (May 21, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> ...




Yes, he removed the portions which contained supernatural events, from the New Testament anyway.

All that tells us is that he didn't believe in those portions of the Bible. He certainly believed in the principles that Christ taught though, and he certainly advocated basing our legal system off the existing Judeo/Christian system, otherwise known as English Common Law.


----------



## TheBrain (May 21, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



what some try to hide is that even the deitists among the founders acknowledged that the principles of Christianity were preferable for the basis of a new nation, and that their was literally NO conflict over this point.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

bodecea said:


> When it comes to our Founders, it is important to remember that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.


 
Is this your cowardly way of attempting to say they embarked upon a huge conspiracy to PRETEND their intent was to found the country on Christian principle, when really they were evil heathens?

I suspect so because even you must realize how pathetically ignorant you would sound if you actually said that.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> ...


 
His personal beliefs have nothing to do with anything. The irrefutable fact of the matter is that the founding fathers, including Jefferson, said repeatedly they were founding a country upon Christian principle.

There's no argument. Whether he was Deist, or Christian, or Buddhist has no bearing upon this particular argument.


----------



## TheBrain (May 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to our Founders, it is important to remember that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.
> ...



That's EXACTLY what it is. She would have us believe that one document which claimed we weren't founded on Christian Principles (and that isn't even what is says) speaks the truth , while thousands of other documents which read that we were founded on Christian principles were lies.  

She is a filthy, disgusting, lying troll. Completely incapable of honest discourse.


----------



## bodecea (May 21, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to our Founders, it is important to remember that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.
> ...



How sad that you do not believe that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 21, 2011)

How sad your stance is so stupid you won't state it.


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> How sad your stance is so stupid you won't state it.



Again, you choose to call me rude names when ALL I say is that Actions Speak Louder Than Words.   Why does that scare you so?


----------



## TheBrain (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > How sad your stance is so stupid you won't state it.
> ...



Actions do speak louder than words. That's how we all know you're a filthy, disgusting, lying troll no matter how much you deny it. Your actions prove it.


----------



## Jazmine (May 22, 2011)

Can I just post these stats:

28 Episcopalians, 
8 Presbyterians, 
7 Congregationalists, 
2 Lutherans, 
2 Dutch Reformed, 
2 Methodists, 
2 Roman Catholics, 
1 unknown
3 deists--Williamson, Wilson and Franklin

So, 93% Christian

[John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.]

And most were Calvinist, which explains the "checks and balances" an outgrowth of the Calvinistic view of the pervasive depravity on man. In England the Revolutionary War was called the "The Presbyterian Rebellion".


----------



## Foxfyre (May 22, 2011)

Jazmine said:


> Can I just post these stats:
> 
> 28 Episcopalians,
> 8 Presbyterians,
> ...



Martin Luther would turn over in his grave to have Lutherans referred to as "Calvinist".  There was no love lost between him and his contempoary, John Calvin.  So only the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and possibly the Dutch Reformed--I honestly can't remember--would be Calvinist.  Likely the British did toss the Lutherans into that same camp based on the Lutheran doctrine of predestination though, so that would bring the count up to a little less than half.  The Episcopalians (Anglicans), Methodists, and Roman Catholics were not Calvinists.

But you are right that it was mostly the Presbyterians who pushed for a rebellion against England.  Some say if it were not for the fierce fighting Calvinists the Revolutionary War would not have been won by us.  

I don't see much Calvinism or any particular Christian doctrine written into the Declaration or Constitution though.  The Founders did a good job with that.


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Sorry, but when you speak from your closet, Connie, everything comes out muffled....did you say something?


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Jazmine said:
> 
> 
> > Can I just post these stats:
> ...



And, of course, their Actions speak even Louder than any Words they would have Written.

Even the most famous words..."All men are created equal..."   What were their actions in comparison to that?


----------



## Jazmine (May 22, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Martin Luther would turn over in his grave to have Lutherans referred to as "Calvinist".  There was no love lost between him and his contempoary, John Calvin.  So only the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and possibly the Dutch Reformed--I honestly can't remember--would be Calvinist.  Likely the British did toss the Lutherans into that same camp based on the Lutheran doctrine of predestination though, so that would bring the count up to a little less than half.  The Episcopalians (Anglicans), Methodists, and Roman Catholics were not Calvinists.
> 
> But you are right that it was mostly the Presbyterians who pushed for a rebellion against England.  Some say if it were not for the fierce fighting Calvinists the Revolutionary War would not have been won by us.
> 
> I don't see much Calvinism or any particular Christian doctrine written into the Declaration or Constitution though.  The Founders did a good job with that.



The Episcopalians were largely Calvinists at that time too. Since then they have changed.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > How sad your stance is so stupid you won't state it.
> ...


 
That doesn't scare me. It just has nothing to do with the topic, and yet you pretend it does. Try to confine yourself to the topic, dear.

Of course you can't. Which is why you continue to spout irrelevancies and weird opinion as though they mean something.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Jazmine said:
> ...


 


Their actions were pretty impressive. I'd love to line up your accomplishments next to theirs.


----------



## Dot Com (May 22, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Such as these:



> I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
> 
> Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. *
> ...



I have @ 50 more if you'd like to see them


----------



## Dot Com (May 22, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Funny you should mention that. Sorry  :



> Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. *
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


----------



## Dot Com (May 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Him being the AUTHOR of the Declaration has no bearing? Gotcha' ;-) 



> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, *I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 *


----------



## TheBrain (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What is the deal with a homosexual using homosexuality as a slur towards other posters? 

By the way, I'm not in the least big homosexual, or confused about my sexuality so you're attempted slur has no effect here.


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Who said anything about homosexuality?  You are in the closet as to who you really are, Connie.  You're coming in very muffled....hard to hear you thru that sock puppet and all.


----------



## Jazmine (May 22, 2011)

Could ask, why does it matter so much that the U.S. not be founded upon Christianity? 

What would it change if we all decided that the U.S. is not founded on Christianity? The first amendment is still the first amendment.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 22, 2011)

Oh it's just the same old argument about revisionist history. Liars and anti-Christian, anti-American pieces of shit like Bod & DrSmith get off by creating a history based on their own ignorant life view, and they live in a world where they think their skewed perception has validity in the real world. Of course they are wrong. The problem is..they present their fantasy as fact. Hence the eternathread.


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You bet their actions were impressive.  But since you bring it up...how would YOUR accomplishments match up to theirs, Allie?   Do your Actions speak louder than YOUR words too?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 22, 2011)

I'm not taking the position that their actions *speak louder than words*, i.e., aren't Christian. That's all you. So prove your weird point...though of course that has nothing to do with the argument that the US was founded upon Christian principle.

But knock yourself out, fruitcake.


----------



## bodecea (May 22, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not taking the position that their actions *speak louder than words*, i.e., aren't Christian. That's all you. So prove your weird point...though of course that has nothing to do with the argument that the US was founded upon Christian principle.
> 
> But knock yourself out, fruitcake.



I take the position that their actions speak louder than words....you CHOOSE to add the thought "i.e. aren't Christian".   That's all on you and your personal interpretation.

But you want me to prove that "actions speak louder than words" now?  And you think that's a weird point?


----------



## JScott (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not taking the position that their actions *speak louder than words*, i.e., aren't Christian. That's all you. So prove your weird point...though of course that has nothing to do with the argument that the US was founded upon Christian principle.
> ...



Sorry I cant give you more rep Bodecea.....


----------



## AllieBaba (May 22, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not taking the position that their actions *speak louder than words*, i.e., aren't Christian. That's all you. So prove your weird point...though of course that has nothing to do with the argument that the US was founded upon Christian principle.
> ...


 
No, I don't want you to prove that actions speak louder than words. As I said, it's an irrelevant point, meant to deflect from the actual discussion and argument, and meant to divert attention from the fact that you made the claim that America wasn't founded upon Christian principle, and your best argument is that "actions speak louder than words". 

If you just want to talk about "actions speak louder than words", which is juvenile and silly, you should make another thread about that. Otherwise, I will continue to assume it's a lame-ass attempt to muddy the waters....triggered by the fact that your grasp of history is as feeble as your grasp of the English language.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

JScott said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



  S'kay.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



So you think that believing Actions Speak Louder than Words is irrelevant?   So what you say, what others say is more important that what you do, than what others do?

Is that your belief?   That it's NOT what the Founders DID, but just what the Founders SAID?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

For the purposes of this argument, yes. Like I said, if you want to talk about how the founders were terrible people who didn't adhere to Christian principle, go ahead and start a thread about it. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the US was founded upon Christian principle.

You know that, of course. You just want to change the subject so nobody will notice you were unable to support your original argument.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> For the purposes of this argument, yes. Like I said, if you want to talk about how the founders were terrible people who didn't adhere to Christian principle, go ahead and start a thread about it.



No one seems to be saying that but you, Allie.   



> But it has nothing to do with whether or not the US was founded upon Christian principle.



Founding is an Action, is it not?   (actually, a long string of actions)



> You know that, of course. You just want to change the subject so nobody will notice you were unable to support your original argument.



I am not changing the subject at all...the Subject is whether the U.S. is Founded on Christian Principles or not....that is an Action....let us look at the Action(s) of our Founding more than any words...because "Actions Speak Louder than Words."   

...that is, of course, unless you don't believe that actions speak louder than words.   Do you?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

You're an idiot. I know you think you're being clever, but you're just being dishonest and foolish.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You're an idiot. I know you think you're being clever, but you're just being dishonest and foolish.



Allie...is this how you answer some legitimate questions?    Seriously?   Can't you stick with a debate for even one day without dropping the topic and getting into personal attacks?

C'mon....tell me now.   Do you believe Actions Speak Louder than Words or not?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

Idiot.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Idiot.



Your personal attack, non-answer tells me that you are afraid of my question.   How odd to be afraid of me asking whether you believe "Actions Speak Louder than Words".    How would answering hurt you in any way?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

Yeah whatever.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah whatever.



Well, since you negged me again for asking a simple, non-threatening question, I will have to assume (yes, I know it's an assumption, but you certainly are running away from answering for some reason) that you find my question intimidating in some way....or that you are afraid to answer because you know it kicks the foundation out from your assertions about our Founders.  

Only you know for sure....and you are busy negging me and calling me names.  (Your Actions speak louder than your words too, Allie)


Now I have to go update the score in my sig.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

Glad I could give you a thrill.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

That's not a come on.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That's not a come on.



Don't worry...I did not take it as such.   But I cannot help but notice you running from my simple question...Do you believe "Actions Speak Louder than Words"...again.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

I don't answer stupid questions that have no bearing on anything, as you know.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't answer stupid questions that have no bearing on anything, as you know.



So, you think it is a stupid question to ask you if you believe "Actions Speak Louder than Words."

Is it stupid because we should already know your answer?

Or is it stupid because you don't want to answer because it will knock the foundations off your Founders argument?

And the question has a LOT of bearing on the OP title...We know a lot about whether the U.S. was founded upon Christianity by the ACTS of our Founders.   We shall know they by their Actions, so to speak.   Why does that make you shy away?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

No, it has zero bearing upon the OP. Please sign up for remedial English and perhaps a vocabulary class, and check back when you have a firmer grasp of the language.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

This is what American was based on







Rome.

We are the new Rome


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, it has zero bearing upon the OP. Please sign up for remedial English and perhaps a vocabulary class, and check back when you have a firmer grasp of the language.



It has a great deal to do with the OP and answering it.   The Founders Actions Speak Louder than their Words as to whether we were Founded as a christian country or not.   That is why you dodge answering my question, IMO.

And it shows everytime you choose to personally attack me rather than answer.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is what American was based on
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you if you are referring to the Roman Republic.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, it has zero bearing upon the OP. Please sign up for remedial English and perhaps a vocabulary class, and check back when you have a firmer grasp of the language.
> ...


 
I'm not attacking you, I'm identifying you as an idiot who has no more business attempting an adult debate than my dog does. It's a waste of time and energy to *debate* with a person who doesn't have a basic adult vocabulary, who lies, and doesn't know the difference between fact and fiction.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



How fascinating.   Did you type that with a straight face?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

I never have a straight face when I'm addressing you.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I never have a straight face when I'm addressing you.



Well then.   That certainly explains a great deal.   But, let's get back to whether you believe Actions Speak Louder than Words or Actions Don't Speak Louder than Words.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

Why? I'm not interested in that subject.


----------



## bodecea (May 23, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Why? I'm not interested in that subject.



Why are you not interested in the subject that can clearly explain the OP one way or another?

Fear?

Avoidance because you know it knocks your foundation down?

Why are you trying to deflect from answering that simple question?

Wouldn't this tie in with Matthew 7:16?   "You will know them by their fruits"?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

It doesn't explain the OP. It's completely irrelevant to the OP. Which is why I'm not interested in it. You go ahead and play with it if you like; nobody pays any attention to what you say, anyway.


----------



## 8atman (May 23, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?


TRANSLATION: Daggonnit. Ive just been caught in my own trap.




Gadawg73 said:


> We do not have Divine Law. We have civil law. The monarchies declared their power from divine law. We do it differently per THE CONSTITUTION.


I dont care what monarchies believed about civil law. Nor did I ask you for the English monarchical view of it.

Answer the question: What was the Founders view of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?




Gadawg73 said:


> Your claim that the Founders were arguing over which religous institutions would get aid and which would not is absurd. FALSE AND A BOGUS FRAUD ARGUMENT.


If youre going to attempt to characterize my arguments, then get it right.

Before I even get to that, lets take a look at exactly what is FALSE AND A BOGUS FRAUD, shall we?

You tried to say that Patrick Henry and his supporters made the statement that the nation was founded on Christian tenets. At that point, you claim, the Founders then disagreed with that ideal and ran them off.

(Freudian slip. Henry IS a Founder, in contrast to what Gadawgs verbiage implied.)

In any case, as has been explained in my last post, your characterization of events...

Never happened.

Now, back to your misrepresentation of my post. Here is exactly what I said, the Founders were struggling with specific issues relating to governmental aid to religious institutions, not overarching issues of religious foundations in government. Jefferson and Madison believed that state financial aid to religious institutions would inevitably lead to another Church-State. Patrick Henry, among others, believed that as long as one denomination was not favored over the over, there was nothing wrong with state aid.

I later went on to say, ...they disagreed over the extent to which religious institutions should receive government aid (and would struggle with this issue, by the way, through several administrations). They were specifically concerned with how government aid might affect 1) The rise of another Church-State (which some territories had already created), and 2) The governmental promotion of one Christian denomination over the other. Thats it. Thats all. It was in no way some sort of religion has no place in government ideal as you have attempted to represent here.

So, where exactly did I say anything about some institutions getting aid and others not?

Did anyone else notice that Gadawg avoided addressing any of the points in my quote?




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> They declared NO religous institution would get ANY aid and you know it.


First of all, I didnt say anything about what they decided; I defined for you the parameters of their debate. Youve mischaracterized my words again.

Secondly, if you are referring to federal aid, you are correct. However, you are claiming more than that. You are claiming the Founders believed religion and government are mutually exclusive. For the present, well ignore the voluminous writings that directly contradict that because I want you to answer this:

If the Founders aim was to get God out of government, why was other financial aid at the state level for religious institutions permitted?

(For those interested in the history of this issue, it is far from having being been decided and ENDED, as some attempt to claim. The Supreme Court has traditionally ruled in favor of the more strict Jefferson/Madison view, while over the past few decades the Henry/Monroe view has gained more favor. In more recent years, the Court has been more or less equally divided.)




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> James Madison STATED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: "Religion itself may become a motive to PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION"


Really? You mean the Founders didnt want another Church-State? Im shocked.




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> The Founders SPOKE PUBLICLY they wanted NO PART of any religion anywhere in government.


Please, make up your mind already. You expended a large amount of effort in this thread claiming we couldnt trust their public statements (well, you know, when they conflicted with your own views). Now, youre telling us to listen to them? So, which is it?

And hey, while were on the subject of public statements, James Madison understood very well the whole God-Government-Law-Citizen interrelationship.

*James Madison - 1785*
Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.

*James Madison - 1825*
The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which reinforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude...

*James Madison - 1778*
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it...[but] upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

I seem to recall you citing as proof that we are not founded on Christian tenets a list of Founders sins as evidence thats not where their heads were at. I put to you this: if the Laws of God are not where your head is at, do you study New Testament doctrines? Do you study arguments for one side and the other? Do you make notes on these things, in your own handwriting, and in your own, personal Bible? I think not.

*James Madison re: Acts 19:32 and the Calvinist tenet of Perseverance*
Believers who are in a State of Grace, have need of the word of God for their Edification and Building up therefore implies a possibility of falling. V. 32




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> Founders sure were smart, weren't they?


Indeed.




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> First draft by Madison was the State of New Hampshire's Constitution wording on religion:
> "Congress shall MAKE NO LAWS TOUCHING ON RELIGION."


Exactly. Keep the government out of church affairs; Dont tell me what to believe; Dont tell me where to worship; Dont tell me whether to worship. This is, of course, in stark contrast to some sort of exclusion of the churchs morality, virtue, and ethics from government and law. In short, get the government out of church, NOT get religious virtue out of government. Do you willfully confuse these things?

Oh, and lets not leave Pre-Constitutional New Hampshire law just yet.

*New Hampshire Government - August 4, 1639*
"Considering with ourselves the holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we should not live without wholesome Lawes and Civil Government among us of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the Sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the Will of God."

While New Hampshire law may be an excellent indication of the social mindset regarding God and government and its influence on civil law, it was in fact Roger Ludlows 1639 Constitution of Connecticut (a.k.a. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut) that served as the model for the US Constitution.

Explain for us, please, what directive was the Connecticut framing committee charged with?

Hey, no worries. Ill field this one for you myself:
To make the laws as near as possible to the Law of God. 

Hmmmmm....




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> Your entire post is full of opinion and no fact.


Id like to encourage the members of this forum to decide for themselves exactly whose posts match that description.


Now, back to the questions you avoided. Please, answer for us the following:

If the Founders did not approve of governmental promotion of Christianity, and never implemented it, explain the 1787 Congressional Land Act. Why did Jefferson extend it three times? Why did he not view it as a violation of his own separation of church and state?

A joint resolution of the House and Senate officially sanctioned 1983 as The Year of the ______?

George Washington instituted Thanksgiving as a federal holiday in 1789. For what purpose?

In 1854, Congress passed a resolution including verbiage defining what they felt was of extreme importance to our governmental system. What was so important?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 23, 2011)

Facts are wasted in this instance, I'm afraid. Ppl like gadawg and bode aren't interested in them, and wouldn't recognize truth if it sat on their collective faces and wiggled.


----------



## 8atman (May 24, 2011)

You never know.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Trust me on this one. Wade through this thread alone for reams of evidence of their willful stupidity.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

8atman said:


> You never know.



In particular you're wasting your time with Bode, at one she admitted that this country was founded on Christian tenets, then she tried to turn that around to suggest that killing native Americans was a Christian tenet. As if the massacre of the native Americans had ANYTHING to do with the founding of this country.

I find it hilarious that the dumb ignorant liar has had the nerve to turn this into a thread chastising Allie for not answering a question. When she herself has NEVER answered a question put to her.

She has not a decent, honest, bone in her body and the world would be better off without her.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

And both seem incapable of understanding that the forefathers could follow Christian tenets in the development of the country's framework...and yet not create a theocracy. It's beyond them.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And both seem incapable of understanding that the forefathers could follow Christian tenets in the development of the country's framework...and yet not create a theocracy. It's beyond them.



Oh I don't think it's beyond Bode. I think HONESTY is beyond Bode. She HATES Christians, and so crediting them with anything goes against her very core.

One can only hope that at SOME point she morphs into a decent person, but from what I have heard others have years of experience dealing with her and she is exactly the same piece of shit she has always been so I rather doubt she will change now.


----------



## 8atman (May 24, 2011)

On the other hand, she makes a great quesadilla.

Yeah, I understand you all are in a big feud with her. There's probably very little she and I would agree on, but she's actually behaved very decent towards me.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > You never know.
> ...



Oh hello....talking about me again, I see.

So...tell us, since Allie seems to have an aversion to answering this question for some reason....Do you think Actions Speak Louder than Words?



(And since you're back, I suppose I'll be seeing you follow me all over the board again)


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And both seem incapable of understanding that the forefathers could follow Christian tenets in the development of the country's framework...and yet not create a theocracy. It's beyond them.
> ...



speaking of exactly the same piece of shit...


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

8atman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?
> ...



Ask the Indians how the wording of "their lands and property will never be taken from them" worked out for them in The 1787 Congressional Land Act.

Politicians SAY anything for the masses. LAW is what counts.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...



I've already stated that I am not part of your stupid attempt to deflect Allie.

Since I'm back again?? Back where?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
Do you know what "found" means? What influence is? Is law the only thing that influenced the founding fathers? Of course not. What influenced their choice of law? THAT is the foundation of the country. The law IS the country. But they had principles that guided them in the development of the law, and those principles, per the founding fathers one and all, were Christian.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...



I have always stated that this country was influenced by Christianity.
How couldn't it be with a country full of Christians?
YOU are the one that confuses INFLUENCE with FOUNDED ON.
Nations are founded on LAW, not men and their various and changing religous practices, bias', views, prejudices, denominations and leaders that change with the wind.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> 8atman said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



In other words:   Actions speak louder than words......something that apparently Allie is in full avoidance mode over.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Nations ARE founded on law, but those laws have to come from somewhere other than thin air.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
You're an idiot.
Yes we have a foundation of laws.

What is the foundation of those laws? The founding fathers SAID THEY WERE APPLYING CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE as they structured the country. The Declaration states the founding principles...and says clearly that God grants the rights that the government is beholden to support. So is it your stance that they were lying, and the Declaration isn't a founding document?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 8atman said:
> ...


 

Yeah, that's it.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



when did god become exclusively christian?


fail


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Yes, del, I'm sure they were referring to one of the non-Christian gods.

Particularly given the fact that they said repeatedly they were talking about the Christian one.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, del, I'm sure they were referring to one of the non-Christian gods.
> 
> Particularly given the fact that they said repeatedly they were talking about the Christian one.



except they never did. they refer to a creator and to god. there's no mention of christ anywhere.

repeat fail


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Don't worry...I did not take it as such.   But I cannot help but notice you running from my simple question...Do you believe "Actions Speak Louder than Words"...again.



You're an idiot, bod.

You ask the same, stupid questions repeatedly. They've all been answered over and over. You've been utterly defeated on your assertion; 8ateman utterly crushed you with irrefutable evidence. 

Do you REALLY think that mindlessly trolling Allie will make you look better? Really?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, del, I'm sure they were referring to one of the non-Christian gods.
> ...


 
We've already been over this. They said they were creating a government, based upon CHRISTIAN principle (the quotes are all through this thread) and for a CHRISTIAN people. Jefferson (I think it was he) said the government they were developing would not work except for a Christian population. 

So fail yourself. You need to read the thread...and the material.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



They believe the DOI is part of the law and call us idiots.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

no, I don't believe it's the law. I believe it's a founding document, and as such, should be taken along with the REAMS of statements by the founding fathers that establishes that they applied Christian principle to the foundation of the country.

Which is what the argument is. The idea that this country is founded SOLELY upon law is a false premise, a logical fallacy, and a lie.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, del, I'm sure they were referring to one of the non-Christian gods.
> ...



Except that since the first Guttenberg Bible when god has been capitalized as God, it has ALWAYS been understood that the writer was referencing the Christian God, always and without exception until this thread.

Fail on your part.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



that'd be good to know if the bible was a part of the founding documents.

extended fail by the whizzer


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



The United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper. 

 Congressional Resolution, September 10, 1782


Congress authorized the printing of the first American Bible.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Who said that the understanding of God meaning the Christian God was limited to the Bible? I merely stated that it BEGAN with the Gutenberg, you know - the first mass produced book, in ALL literature God is assumed to reference the Christian God.

Del Fail.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Part of the founding documents?  No.  The Founding Fathers had plenty of ammunition of their own to include in those documents without plagiarizing the Bible.  But a day or two ago I posted a series of quotations from the Founding Fathers demonstrating their belief that the government they conceived was inextricably bound with their religious faith.

Chuck Baldwin, pastor, radio host, and the candidate of the Constitution Party in 2008 expresses it like this:



> The Declaration of Independence states, "[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It also states that these rights are "self evident" and that they constitute the "Laws of Nature." These principles are taken directly from the Bible.
> 
> The Law of Nature can be viewed in Romans 2:14-16. That our Creator is the Author of life is seen in Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, grants liberty is seen in Galatians 5:1. The "pursuit of happiness" is found in Ecclesiastes 3:13.
> 
> ...


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



How very nice.   So, the ordering of the printing of a American Bible PROVES that we are founded on Christian principles, eh?    Let's be clear on the evidence you are presenting.

FYI...1782 is 5 years before the Constitution was written and set in place.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



that's nice.

 let me know where the constitution required it.

 oops, there was no constitution in 1782

have a nice day


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



only by nitwits like you, or don't jews and muslims write books?

failing like a mexican whore in a piss stream


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Did I say that it proved we were founded on Christian principles?

No I did not.

Nothing was said about the Constitution.

I simply laid out the fact that the Aitken Bible is the only Bible printing ever called for by an act of the United States Congress.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Show me where anyone has made that claim.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



what's your point, buckwheat?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I made my point. I'm sorry you're not bright enough to understand it, Deldo.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



so your point was that congress authorized publication of a bible?

woo-fucking-hoo!


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



yes Jews and Muslims both write books, and when they do Jews believe in the same God as Christians and so capitalize it and Muslims believe in a god named Allah, so they don't capitalize the god. DUH


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



so jews are christians?

oy


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Nice counter argument.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


 
Er, NO, you fucking moron. I don't believe the DOI is a part of the law. I think it's a FOUNDING DOCUMENT.

Jesus. BTW, I've gotten private messages asking me if you're developmentally delayed. More than one.


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



every bit as effective as yours.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



How silly.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> so jews are christians?
> 
> oy



You truly are mentally retarded...


----------



## del (May 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > so jews are christians?
> ...



ooh, baboonboi weighs in.



i'm crushed.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Well, let's look at the Declaration of Independence....how much did our Founding Fathers REALLY believe that "all men are created equal"?   How did they put that in action with their new nation?   Tell us.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Why would they have to believe it? They incorporated the principles. I didn't say anything about their faith. Faith is personal.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I can see how you would think that. Given you're merely a troll.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Why would they have to believe it? They incorporated the principles. I didn't say anything about their faith. Faith is personal.



How was "endowed by their Creator" incorporated into our government?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Do you know what a principle is? Because if you did, you wouldn't ask that question.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Haven't I been here before? 

"
*Definition of PRINCIPLE*

1
_a_ *:* a comprehensive and fundamental [COLOR=#006400! important][COLOR=#006400! important]law[/color][/color], doctrine, or assumption _b __(1)_ *:* a rule or code of conduct _(2)_ *:* habitual devotion to right principles <a man of _principle_> _c_ *:* the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device 

2
*:* a primary source *:* origin 

3
_a_ *:* an underlying faculty or endowment <such _principle__s_ of human nature as greed and curiosity> _b_ *:* an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality 

4
_capitalized_ _Christian Science_ *:* a divine principle *:* god 

&#8212; *in principle* *:* with respect to fundamentals <prepared to accept the proposition _in principle_> "

Principle - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?
Why were those Christian principles ended? How come they were not used to "found the nation"?
My ancestors arrived here in the 1650s, Harold Walker and Jacob Terhune as Quakers. The Anglicans were already established in most of the colonies and were heavily persecuted by the Puritans. 
But religous diversity quickly appeared and became a dominant part of colonial life. MANY religous denominations appeared. ALL wanted a part in the politics of their towns and the colonies. That is the way IT USED to work. 
Now, Colonial law WAS not based on the old English monarchial law of land ownership. Colonial law WAS based on religous belief instead. No aristocratic social order existed as none of the folks in the early colonies had a fancy social order.
The Constitution ended that. The religous titles of "My Lord" and such are no where to be found in our laws and no reference to religion in any way.
For a reason.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?
> Why were those Christian principles ended? How come they were not used to "found the nation"?
> My ancestors arrived here in the 1650s, Harold Walker and Jacob Terhune as Quakers. The Anglicans were already established in most of the colonies and were heavily persecuted by the Puritans.
> But religous diversity quickly appeared and became a dominant part of colonial life. MANY religous denominations appeared. ALL wanted a part in the politics of their towns and the colonies. That is the way IT USED to work.
> ...



1650 is a long way from 1776.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Maybe I am educated beyond my intelligence. Blame sports fans, not me, for allowing me a free full ride education courtesy of you, the taxpayer via Miller Lite commercials funding the games.
Throw in a graduate degree I paid for from a real university.
But at least I, unlike you, was and am educated and do not run off of popularity rah rah chants from parroting private message menage au trois climaxes.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?
> ...



That is exactly my point. Thank you. The Founders and The Constitution ended religous influences in the government decision making and the laws.
Society was and is influenced by Christianity. The nation was founded on LAW, not religon.
The nation goes to church and is Christian predominantly.
If the nation was not founded on the law then why did they have The Continental Convention.
To have tea, say prayers and give speeches about God?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

del said:


> i'm crushed.



No, you're retarded.

Seriously...

Now wipe your chin, you're drooling again!


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
"
John Adams: &#8220;The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221;

John Quincy Adams:

&#8220;Is it not, in the chain of human events, the birth day of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth day of the Savior? *That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer&#8217;s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity*.&#8221;


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What laws gave us the bill of rights?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?



And here is where you trip up:

Massachusetts levied a religious tax for the support of churches until 1807. Clearly the the practices you speak of did NOT end with the U.S. Constitution.

Connecticut funded the Congregationalist church with tax monies until 1818.

You see, prior to the civil war, the Federal Government was viewed as a separate and distinct body from the states, not as an overarching empire that dictated what the states would do.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Do you know what a principle is? Because if you did, you wouldn't ask that question.



Principles, much like integrity, honesty, and intelligence, is something Bode will never have any experience of or understanding of.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Bill of Rights were authored by James Madison and he relied on The Virginia Declaration of Rights as his model:
"That ALL POWER, be vested in and consequently derived from, THE PEOPLE, that MAGISTRATES are their trustees and servants to them at ALL TIMES amendable to them."
Men, not religion, write the laws and men, not religion, enforce the law. 
Section 16, the last Section, was not used in any Constituional way. 
They ended that way of doing business with the Constitution.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?
> ...



You prove my point once again.
The nation is not just ONE STATE.
Guess why the religous tax was ended?
Now you know that everyone else denies there were religous taxes of any kind.
Glad you pointed out that fact.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was it that in the Puritan Christian society one was whipped, fined, banished and even IMPRISONED for not doing things the Puritan way? And how come when many of those same Christian mores were carried over into many of the other colonies THEY ENDED with the US Constitution?
> ...



Dude, hate to tell you but the civil war was 55 years after the Mass. religous tax so how does your seperate body civil war argument hold any water?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
And what did they base that upon?

Christian principle. Free will....

At least, that's what THEY said.


----------



## TheBrain (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you want to get all technical and stuff. The COTUS didn't have ANYTHING to do with the founding of this nation. It was and is merely a framework of our legal structure.

Prnciples are not something that are found on paper. They are what is found in a man's heart. Faith, Hope, Charity (God I sound like Glen Beck, please forgive me.) This is what our nation was founded on. The COTUS is merely a codification of the laws we expect our GOVERNMENT to abide by. Of course it doesn't mention God, because it has nothing to do with God. It has to do with The People and their relationship to government. 

The only questions really are 

1. Do you agree that faith, hope, and charity were and are the three major pillars of our country.

I would say that without question they are. Sure we can be nasty, stupid, vile people, but deep down Americans are known for coming to the aid of those who need it, the very definition of charity. Deep down we all have hope that tomorrow's world will be better than today's. The very definition of hope. Deep down, we all believe in something. Even those who don't believe in any god of any sort still believe in something (except for a few true whack jobs) The very definition of faith.

question number 2

Do you agree that faith , hope, and charity are the bedrock of Christianity?  Now that's not saying Christians are perfect and always act accordingly, but the Bible is clear that we are to be faithful, charitable, and hopeful and that is how most of us live our lives. The fact that we are humans and often fuck up doesn't change the underlying facts.

And with that, I am done with this thread, and encourage everyone who believes as I do to bail on it and let those who deny simple facts wallow in their denial.

Have a great day.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know what a principle is? Because if you did, you wouldn't ask that question.
> ...



  And here you are again, making this about personally attacking me.  You can't stop....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 24, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So these rights just came out of thin air when the Virginia Declaration of Rights was written.

Section 16 states.

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i'm crushed.
> ...


 
And flailing, too!


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Fill this in:

Christian tenet First Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Second Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Third Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Fourth Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Fifth Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Sixth Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Seventh Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Eighth Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Ninth Amendment based on:

Christian tenet Tenth Amendment based on:


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Uh, no.

The assertation that the tenets must be written in the law is your false premise, not mine.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Again, it's a matter of you not understanding, or ignoring, the concept of "found". You seem to equate it with "law". They are not synonyms.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Bump...for someone, anyone?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

it's irrelevant, Bod. And you and a couple other fringers with comprehension problems are the only ones who don't see it.


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Anyone?   Bueller?   Bueller?   Even one Amendment?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Nobody claimed God was mentioned there. Why are you asking people to prove a point that was never made?


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



is this multiple choice and is ther any extra credit?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

Shit, who knows.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Shit, who knows.


I'm not putting in the effort unless I know there's a reward or recognition coming my way.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 24, 2011)

I'm always interested to see how far someone is willing to run with a closely held belief after they know it's completely incorrect, and how far they will twist to pretend they weren't proven wrong, but the question was something else ENTIRELY....


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm always interested to see how far someone is willing to run with a closely held belief after they know it's completely incorrect, and how far they will twist to pretend they weren't proven wrong, but the question was something else ENTIRELY....



186 pages and counting should give you a pretty good benchmark to work with


----------



## bodecea (May 24, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Well, no multiple choice...but I can rustle up some extra credit maybe.    Give it a shot.  Just don't stand on the sideline and just take personal shots rather than actually laying out something of substance or answering some basic questions.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



1. If you were in the Colonies in the 1700s, the English were coming and your sons were being held against their will by the British explain how "faith, hope and charity" are going to help you IN ANY WAY.
2. Different question of RELIGION. You got that one dead RIGHT.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

No, that's not the discussion. 

The discussion is that it was the premise of the founding fathers, who stated they built this country upon Christian principle and that certain rights come from God and none other; and that the function of government is to protect those rights that originate from God.

We aren't arguing that there is a God, or that the founding fathers were good Christians, or that they were of any particular religion. We aren't arguing that we were founded as a theocracy, or that religion is dictated to anyone through our constitution. We are simply affirming that the country was founded and built, per the founding fathers, upon Christian tenets.

That means that the FF were guided by Christian values as they were developing the foundation of the country.

Why is it so hard for some people to stick to the topic?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> No, that's not the discussion.
> 
> The discussion is that it was the premise of the founding fathers, who stated they built this country upon Christian principle and that certain rights come from God and none other; and that the function of government is to protect those rights that originate from God.
> 
> ...



Hard for you to ever be specific?
WHAT rights are you talking about when you claim "certain rights come from God and none other".
WHAT RIGHTS ARE YOUR "CERTAIN RIGHTS"
SPECIFICS. 
NAME THEM.
And why did God differentiate and only grant us "certain" rights?
Which ones did he leave out and why?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Allie has no specifics.
Easier to cover her tracks making off the wall shot gun generalizations with nothing ever specific.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not the discussion.
> ...



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.*~U.S. Declaration of Independence


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> *Allie has no specifics.*Easier to cover her tracks making off the wall shot gun generalizations with nothing ever specific.



That became evident way back when I kept giving her a list of Christian Principles to fill out.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



That is an Enlightenment Principle...where is it mentioned in Christian Canon?

Just a little history on the "all men are equal" idea...the Quakers actually practiced that and were persecuted horribly for it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Allie has no specifics.
> Easier to cover her tracks making off the wall shot gun generalizations with nothing ever specific.


 
Do you live in opposite land? I just specifically told you, again, what the argument was, and what it wasn't. 

As I keep saying, at this point it is obvious that there are certain people who have problems with language. I don't know if the problem is cognitive, if it is an issue with education, or if some people are just so fucking dishonest, they cannot accept fact once they set themselves on a particular course. 

I don't need to list the principles of Christianity, btw. The Founding Fathers TOLD us what they were guided by (Christian principle). As I said, the argument isn't whether they were good Christians, or whether we are a theocracy, so which principles they specifically were guided by doesn't matter. They SAID they were guided by Christian principle. I assume primarily free will and the concept that we are granted certain rights (as listed in the declaration) by God and God alone. Which I have stated already, repeatedly. If that's too *general* for you I can't help you; you apparently are as clueless about the word *specific* as you are about the word *found*.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....


----------



## Newby (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....



Where would you like your rights to come from?  Government?  Other people?  Who determines what they are?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
It doesn't MATTER if other philosophies share it, as has already been established. What MATTERS is that the FF stated they were adhering to CHRISTIAN principles. As I said, the debate isn't over whether or not they were GOOD Christians (or even Christian at all). They SAID they were founding the country upon Christian values. Not *enlightenment* values.

Why are you the only one who has ever heard of the *horrible* persecution of Quakers in the US btw? Quakers were extremely prosperous in the early days of the US. They built Philly and did so well that the church actually divided over it...there were those who thought they had become too worldly, I believe, and who broke away...


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....
> ...



You are born with them...they are Natural...aka Natural rights.   Government does not give you your rights...that would infer they have the right to take them away whenever they feel like it.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So, people SAY something and it is automatically true?

And I never said the U.S. persecuted Quakers...England did...the Puritans did.  Why?   because they believed that all men were created equal...Christianity of that time DID NOT ACCEPT that premise and they were persecuted for it.   So no one here can seriously tote that "all men are created equal" was a Christian principle at that time.   It most certainly was not and was strongly rejected by Christianity.  (except for the Quakers)


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

When it comes to this argument, you bet. This argument is whether or not the founding fathers founded the country upon Christian tenets.

They did. You want to argue that they weren't good Christians, you go right ahead, but that has nothing to do with this argument. In a debate class, or even a comp class, you would have gotten a big fat F for your showing.

BTW, this massive *Quaker persecution* you keep bringing up took place more than a hundred years BEFORE the declaration, and a whopping 4 people were executed.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?



hey bro. That is EXACTLY what the founding fathers said. That God granted us rights. The COTUS doesn't GIVE us any rights. It merely guarantees that the government won't attempt to take certain rights away.

That's as serious as I can be about that. Put all the bullshit that has been going on in this thread aside, and truly think about what I just wrote. The government can not and does not grant any rights. It can certainly violate your rights though. Our Constitution guarantees that ours won't.

I'm done arguing about the Christian principles. but this point is a matter of civics, not religion.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....



Just because others deny the Christian God is the one and only God doesn't mean that He doesn't exist, and certainly The One God gave you your rights whether you believe in Him or not.


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> When it comes to this argument, you bet. This argument is whether or not the founding fathers founded the country upon Christian tenets.
> 
> They did. You want to argue that they weren't good Christians, you go right ahead, but that has nothing to do with this argument. In a debate class, or even a comp class, you would have gotten a big fat F for your showing.
> 
> BTW, this massive *Quaker persecution* you keep bringing up took place more than a hundred years BEFORE the declaration, and a whopping 4 people were executed.



there is nowhere in christian dogma even the slightest allusion to all men being equal.

nada, zip, zilch


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

Besides which, that isn't the point. We aren't arguing the existence of God.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Besides which, that isn't the point. We aren't arguing the existence of God.



You are right, we are not.   We are arguing whether the Founders FOUNDED our country on Christian principles.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to this argument, you bet. This argument is whether or not the founding fathers founded the country upon Christian tenets.
> ...


 
Irrelevant.

Though you are wrong, of course. But I presume you probably are using the word *equal* incorrectly.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....
> ...



Morning there!


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



you presume a lot.

perhaps you should substitute thought for presumption.


just a thought


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



That is interesting...so you disagree with the posters saying that the Christian Principles our country was founded on was that "all men are created equal"?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Besides which, that isn't the point. We aren't arguing the existence of God.
> ...


 
Wow, no shit. Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....



From God


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > If rights come from the Christian God, where do atheists' rights come from?  Muslims' rights?  Hindus' rights?  Pagans' rights?  Buddhists' rights?...and so on....
> ...



Which god(s)?


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



FOUNDED, Allie....not SAID they founded.   Remember?  Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



There is only one God.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Sorry....your proof?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Anyone?   Bueller?   Bueller?   Even one Amendment?



Emperor Qin of China created the Terracotta army; clay figures to fool the Mongols into thinking that the Shaanxi province would be protected by a great force. 


Now bod has created a Straw Man army of logical fallacies... But no one is fooled.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

So we're back to square one. I'm out of here, this is stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?



I think they are claiming that you got your talking points from George Soros - who no doubt is kind of your god...


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?
> ...



good one!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Corinthians 8:4 

John 5:44 

Isaiah 44:6 

Isaiah 46:9 

Deuteronomy 32:39


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Isn't it interesting that this is such a horrid thing to ask that Allie negs for asking it?   I guess it beats getting burned at the stake like Christian authorities used to do to questioners of their dogma.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



That's nice.   But there are other scriptures out there from other religions that disagree with your cited passages.  Not really proof, just opinion.  Biased opinion....from a people that historically couldn't even agree with each other as to the  desires and principles of their god.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Whining about rep again I see.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Hello.  Again.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Proof enough for me. 

So where are these other religious passages you speak of? And can you prove they are correct and mine are wrong?


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



no more than you can prove yours are correct and the others are wrong.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



It's odd that a woman who is willing to claim she believes gay is genetic , even though there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support that would question another person's belief about ANYTHING.

Oh well, maybe she's just a hypocrite..........


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Isn't it interesting that this is such a horrid thing to ask that Allie negs for asking it?   I guess it beats getting burned at the stake like Christian authorities used to do to questioners of their dogma.



Just for the record, I have never neg repped you Bod.

I've never negged anyone who didn't neg me first.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?
> ...



Except for here, from the same people who keep calling Obama "Messiah", I would never even know who this Soros guy is.   But he sure gets talked about alot on this Message Board.  If I were to use the same rule of thumb as some Righties here...that would be a strong indication of people fearing him, would it not?


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Your off topic sign is off topic, Allie.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



And that is ok...but you are not a Founder.  Nor are you allowed to run our government by your own religious belief system, either your beliefs spoken or acted upon.



> So where are these other religious passages you speak of? And can you prove they are correct and mine are wrong?



All scriptures from Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Myths, Legends of gods from all faiths and cultures....and no, they are NO MORE and NO LESS provable than your quoted passages.   They are ALL non-provable equally.  Some will call your passages nice, but fairy tales.  You might call passages from the dharma or the Bhagavad Gita nice, but fairy tales.   NONE are provable.   Only actions that people take are provable.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I don't need to be convinced that I what I believe is true. I simply wanted to see what kind of nonsense bodumbass comes up with.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



ALL scriptures? The perhaps you could provide a few of them. 

Islam:

The most concise description of the concept of God in Islam is given in Surah Al-Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Quran. The surah contains only 4 verses.
1. Say : "God is One.
2. "God is Perfect.
3. "He was not begotten, nor did he beget.
4. "None is equal to Him."

Hinduism:

There is no second God, nor a third, nor is even a fourth spoken of
There is no fifth God or a sixth nor is even a seventh mentioned.
There is no eighth God, nor a ninth. Nothing is spoken about a tenth even.
This unique power is in itself. That Lord is only one, the only omnipresent. It is one and the only one.
Atharva Veda 13.4.2 19-20

Buddhism isn't a religion.


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



she's got a ways to go to compete with you


----------



## HUGGY (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Soros in his own words....

George Soros Responds To Glenn Beck's 'Puppet Master' Criticism (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I see you're speaking from experience.

Tell me, do you ever get bored of trolling?


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



i usually surfcast


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




 waaaaayyyyyyy


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



semantics


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



no, fish


----------



## HUGGY (May 25, 2011)

The "Buzz Bomb"..is the "Bomb" ...Buzz!

http://www.myfishingandcamping.com/eMerchantPro/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=24816&idcategory=79


----------



## Newby (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



But that's not a source outside of human existence, what you describe is a human concept, therefore it is definable by humans however they see fit to define it at the time.  What you fail to grasp is that the founders used the concept of God, something greater than man, to define where rights extended from.  Therefore they are immutable and untouchable by man for any reason.  When you take that away, you give all the power to other men to determine what your rights are.  It's the basic principle this country was founded on.  If you take the concept of God away, you take away the founding principle.

Your problem is that you have such a huge chip on your shoulder that you can't think of anything in terms of anything other than what you believe.  And then you proceed to basically plug your ears, close your eyes and continue to repeat the same responses ad nauseum instead of discussing anything.  And then you wonder why no one will engage you in conversation.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



So what rights did God give us?
Specifics.
My ears are open and am willing to engage in conservation.
WHAT RIGHTS?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



My grandmother was a Terhune, Quaker, and they go back to the mid 1600s. They were terribly persecuted by the Puritans.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?
> ...



Do you always speak for others instead of yourself?
"I think"
I have never read anything Boy George has ever said. 
"No doubt"
You think and claim no doubt.
My Christian upbringing taught me to never, ever speak for anyone else.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



He was speaking for himself. 

What part of " I " did you not understand?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



"I think they are claiming" *THEY ARE CLAIMING*

You can't gather a thought for yourself either.
Imagine that.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> ...



They are going to believe what they were taught in Sunday School class.
Not what the facts are.
But it is fun watching them throw out generalizations and nothing ever specific.
Not one fact whatsoever to back up their claims.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes he was giving HIS opinion on what he thought they were claiming. He wasn't speaking FOR THEM.

Your name fits you, you're as dumb as a dog.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Allie has no specifics.
> ...



List the rights God gave us.
Back up your claims.
I doubt you can because your milk is weak and has always been weak.

Anytime someone wants to set the rules their way on what the "argument was and what it isn't" you know they are beat.
Boo hoo, cry baby. 
Back up your claims. If not, admit it and move on.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Except for here, from the same people who keep calling Obama "Messiah", I would never even know who this Soros guy is.



It is not important that the sheep know the name of the shepherd.

Madcow fills your skull full of mush with the ideas she is directed by Soros to elucidate. What difference does it make whether you personally comprehend the source of the idiocy you spout?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> Soros in his own words....



Everything you post or even think is Soros in his own words.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

del said:


> no, fish



Trolls eat fish?

I thought you went for Billy-goats?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Do you always speak for others instead of yourself?



Do you never think for yourself?



> I have never read anything Boy George has ever said.



That's okay, Rachel, Keith and Jon tell you what to think.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> "I think they are claiming" *THEY ARE CLAIMING*



As is the case with most leftists, you are dull of wit and utterly humorless...


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you always speak for others instead of yourself?
> ...



Who are Rachel and Jon?
Keith Johnson was a good tackle out of Ocilla, Ga. for us in the early 80s.


----------



## Spoonman (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?


Yes


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I sat in a Sunday School class from the time I was two until I was out of college.  Have either been in such classes or taught such classes most of the time since then.  I benefitted from what I was taught.  I have since rejected much of what I was taught when through further education or my own research, I found better information.

To think that the child in a Sunday School class is more brainwashed than a child tutored by somebody who looks on religion as you do and who preaches it every chance he gets is a bit disingenuous don't you think?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you folks are claiming that American citizens got their rights from God?
> ...



How come God was a racist and left the black folk out?
Mighty white of him.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Tell me how I look on religion.
And if GoBananas is a good bet at 10-1 at Calder in the 3rd race if this is a good day for you.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Except for here, from the same people who keep calling Obama "Messiah", I would never even know who this Soros guy is.
> ...



Your post is so Ironic on so many levels, I give  you credit for making me chuckle.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Yes.   they all believe they are correct just like YOU believe  you are correct.   They are not provable just like YOUR scripture isn't provable.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


That's right...there is no source outside of human existance.   Now you are getting it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

I keep hearing this from Allie, Lonestar and most of you:
"TheFounders stated they were very religous and that God needed to play a role in this and that."

When you folks vote do you go by what a politician says or *WHAT THEY DO, THEIR TRACK RECORD?*
The current state that we are in is that most Americans vote on what the political BS is that comes out of their mouths and do not have a clue as to what their voting record is or what legislation theY offered.
If any of you folks own a business as I do then when you do business do you go what people say or do you go by what their actions are and what is defined *CONTRACTURALLY BY LAW?*
When you folks go and buy a house, a car, a boat, ANYTHING, do you go by what the sales person says, claims, brags about, lectures on, states that God wants it and blesses it or *DO YOU GO BY THE CONTRACT THAT YOU SIGN?*
Again, what criteria do you go by when you vote for the politicians. Rank hearsay OR what they do, the actions they take, the legislation they introduce and pass?
Which is it? 
Which HAS GREATER WEIGHT AND IS THE BEST evidence of what they believe in?
Words or ACTIONS?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And they all made you out to be a liar.  You stated that these religions had more than one God. Who am I to say their God isn't the same God as mine just called a different name?


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



One day you will find out how right we were. Oh what a glorious day that will be. I hope it happens soon. I really do.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



My standard of a politician is what they vote on, what legislation they support or don't support and what their actions are.
Your standards are what they state at political rallies.
All the while claiming that I am dumb.
No wonder the country is going down the tubes.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights.  But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution.  It was dealt with later, however.

But yes, the Founders, to a man, agreed that God or a Creator or Supreme Being is the source of unalienable rights that men would not be able to set aside for any reason.

And they did absolutely use Christian principles to forge the country that they gave us:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this - that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams
*****************************
"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson
*****************************
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
*****************************
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin
*****************************
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
*****************************
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles...to this we owe our free constitutions of government." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor." - George Washington
*****************************
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be." - John Adams
*****************************
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

(I have furnished sources for all these in earlier posts in this thread so did not do that again here.)


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So which is more important Lonestar?
Which is more indicative of where a politician stands on the issues?
What they say or the legislation they pass and support?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights.  But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution.  It was dealt with later, however.
> 
> But yes, the Founders, to a man, agreed that God or a Creator or Supreme Being is the source of unalienable rights that men would not be able to set aside for any reason.
> 
> ...




So which is a better indicator of what a politician believes:
What is the best evidence:
Their words or their actions?
What holds more water and credibility in the world? Words spoken or legislation passed and supported?
Which is it? Which is more important for the people? Which protects the people and governs the people?
Words or legislation? Which is a better indicator of where a politician really stands?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

What is a nation founded on?
Words or the actions of the people and the politicians, the legislation they pass and the system set up to enforce that legislation?
What is the best evidence of what a nation is founded on? 
Words or ACTIONS?


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> What is a nation founded on?
> Words or the actions of the people and the politicians, the legislation they pass and the system set up to enforce that legislation?
> What is the best evidence of what a nation is founded on?
> Words or ACTIONS?



No one answered this stupid strawman when Bode asked it for 3 days straight, and no one is going to answer it now. It's irrelevant and ridiculous that you are using the fact that Christians aren't perfect to try to show that they weren't even Christians to begin with.

Nitwit.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights.  But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution.  It was dealt with later, however.
> ...



Their actions were to put their lives on the line, be willing to spill their blood, be willing to lose everything in order to be a free people who would govern themselves.  And once they won freedom, they secured it by giving us the original U.S. Constitution.  That was the great experiment of the Unitied States.  A central government would secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.  There had never been anything like it in the history of the world.  It produced the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world had ever known.

If their actions that could have cost them all that they had including their lives isn't sufficient for you as proof of where they stood, then I fear that you are quite hopeless and uneducable.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What is a nation founded on?
> ...



I never saw anyone ask this question so I will go back and look.

YOU are the one throwing out the quotes of the Founders.
Not me. YOU state that the words mean more than their actions.
NOT ME. 
No one will answer because they and you know I am right.
ACTIONS mean more than words to anyone with a brain.
But you do not hold politicians to that standard. You believe what they say ONLY.
Legislation, treaties, THE LAW is secondary to you.
You know nothing about business, government, policy or THE LAW.
That is why you will not answer. You have been backed into a corner and you know it.
You have thrown in the towel. 

Wham it zero on set, EP team on ready, 3rd string D on gather.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You dodged my question. Slant, distort and twist.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I am not throwing out any quotes. I made my last post trying to get you to see facts 2 days ago and made it known that was my last post doing so. Now I'm just poking at you goobers. You didn't even bother to read my post. If you had you'd surely agree that a document written a decade AFTER the founding of our nations is NOT a founding document.

but whatever. you gave up logic a long time ago, so no worries.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Nope.  Sorry.  Focused, on point, and accurate to show that their actions backed up the words I posted.  You'll have to do better than that if you want any points in this debate.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Hello.  Again.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Truely?  I really said that?   You'd better look to my post again.  People who call others liars had best have their proof in hand, don't you think?


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Bumping for L_L.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

poor delusional bode. I pray that she finds out soon that the Lord is real.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> poor delusional bode. I pray that she finds out soon that the Lord is real.



Hello.  Again.


----------



## Rodack (May 25, 2011)

Democrats despise everything American:

Our Christian heritage
Our Capitalist Economy
Our Military
Our Wealth and success
Our Laws based on Individual Freedoms
Our Constitution




It utterly amazes me that anyone in the country would ever vote for a Collectivist American hating baby killing Democrat Athiest.


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Democrats despise everything American:
> 
> Our Christian heritage
> Our Capitalist Economy
> ...



I'm sorry...were we supposed to take your post seriously?   Just checking because we get a lot of heavy sarcasm here and your post looks like that.


----------



## Rodack (May 25, 2011)

I am here to learn


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 25, 2011)

Why does it say "thebrain is conhog" at the bottom of this page?


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Why does it say "thebrain is conhog" at the bottom of this page?



because midnight marauder, some people are dicks who like to play with search tags.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it say "thebrain is conhog" at the bottom of this page?
> ...


But, why does it SAY that?


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2011)

Rodack said:


> I am here to learn



Ah...well, welcome then.  I hope you enjoy it.


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



duh because someone posted that in this thread then did a google search and found this thread


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...


But....

Why does it SAY that?

"thebrain is conhog."

Is what I mean.


----------



## del (May 25, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Democrats despise everything American:
> 
> Our Christian heritage
> Our Capitalist Economy
> ...



you seem upset


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



I can not answer that question.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...


That's what I'm asking. It says it in bigger letters than most of the rest too.

Why?


----------



## TheBrain (May 25, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...




I honestly don't know , or care. People can type whatever they want.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 25, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...


I just wanna know why it says that. I don't care what people type. It just seems pretty authoritative, there in 30 point bold type and all.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Thanks for reminding me why I typically don't bother responding to any of your posts.  You're just too damn clever for me.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights.  But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution.  It was dealt with later, however.
> ...



You keep referring to actions.  Could you please what specific 'actions' that you are saying back up your argument?  You have been given specific quotes directly from the people who founded this country and what their ideas and thoughts were.  So, I think it's time for you to pony up and show which 'actions' negated their words.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I really think that, unfortunately, like the other nitwit on here, you don't have the intellectual capacity to even have this conversation.  All you and the other one know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over again like it means something.  Neither of you are worth the wasted effort.  Or as your partner in crime is so fond of,

Hello again.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



How odd that you would say that considering that we are the ones willing to continue this conversation while you are the one disengaging, with a few parting personal shots about US rather than the topic.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You're not 'engaging' in anything but your immature, perceived 'put downs'. All you've done here is repeat the same damn thing throughout this entire thread.  You've not discussed anything that anyone has said in return, you just repeat yourself over and over.  You do it not only here, but pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in.  You have no desire to hear anyone else's point of view or to even think about what they say, or take them seriously.  You're only here to negate everything they say and to put them down, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change regardless of what anyone else might say or bring up.  And not only that, you feel that you are superior to them in some warped way because you think you have the superior belief system, whatever that may be. You have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding religion, I can only assume because you're gay and you take offense to their thoughts on your lifestyle.  And you put down anything to do with it as a knee jerk reaction, I don't think you even give it a thought, it's ingrained in your psyche by this point.  I don't think there's really any hope of you maturing and getting to the point where you can be critical about yourself and your own though processes and realize what you are doing.  I mean, facts stare you right in the face and you still refute them.  I'm guessing if we could somehow conjure up the founding fathers and have them tell you directly what their intentions were, you'd call them liars and not believe them.  It's just a complete waste of time to even engage you in any discussion about it, because really there just isn't a 'discussion', there's only missles thrown back and forth like we're in a grade school play ground or something.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



You sunk her battleship


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I figured someone was smart enough and had the balls to ask and that would be you:
"As the government of The United States, is not, in any way founded on the Christian religion". This is a treaty, AN ACTION of the Founders.
Treaties ratified by The United States Senate would be *ACTIONS *by our politicians.
ACTIONS ALWAYS carry more weight, have more power, stand for what a nation is and was founded on. 
This action, this treaty was passed UANANIMOUSLY with many of the Founders voting IN FAVOR OF IT.
Case closed. Thanks for asking. Actions, NOT RANK HEARSAY, is what nations are founded on. The protections we as citizens are guaranteed UNDER THE LAW is what nations are founded on, not political spittle from the mouths of politicians.
Give it up. This is fact. There are NO WORDS promoting religion anywhere in our laws, anywhere that founded this nation. 
But there are actions stating we WERE NOT FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Those would be actions, not words. 
Words are cheap. ACTIONS are what free people depend on and live by.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What treaty and who wrote it?   And where do you think the principles came from to write the laws to begin with?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


 
Bingo.

And we have provided the words of the founding fathers over and over and over. It doesn't matter. Ineducable is the word.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So you say...as you refuse to answer whether you believe Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Loon.

I forgot, I'm out of here.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.

Loon.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration,



The Treaty most certainly DOES trump the Declaration...all laws trump the Declaration because it is NOT a law...I believe that has been explained to you before.



> and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.



THat is incorrect...it is in OUR voted on version of the Treaty that that statement is in....or else how would we know?



> Loon.



Don't need to sign your posts.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So?  It's a treaty with people of a different religion who also lived under a theocrasy, it was saying that religion was not a motivating factor for the need for the treaty nor would it preclude them from having a treaty.  No one has ever tried to say that the founders intended on creating a christian theocrasy.  The fact that they're stating that the United States is not a christian theocrasy is somehow evidence to you against the actual statements made by the founding fathers themselves that the foundation and principles of a free country were not based on christian principles. Christian principles and christian theocrasy are two very different things.  The founders were christian men, so their morals and principles that stemmed from their beliefs played a part in the documents that were created from the ideas they had about how a country should operate whether you like it or not.  You can not like christianity, and no one gives a damn whether you do or not, but you can't change the history of the people who founded this country, they were mostly christians.  Not only were they christians, but a great majority of them had seminary degrees.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
> 
> Loon.



I wonder if the original signed document is in the archives?


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



It is a Treaty approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by the President...by our Constitution, it is law.   Not just words, but Law.  How do you explain that when it comes to actually writing law and our Founders actually taking action, there is no Christianity involved...it is all secular in nature.  Explain that, please.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
> ...



It is required to be, I believe.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Newby said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
> ...


I don't think so.

We went through all this before. Bod is famous for getting pwned, then starting the exact same argument over again a couple of pages later as if it never happened, using all the same silliness.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

This is my take on it, and reinforces my original thoughts that they didn't want it to appear to be a holy war, or 'christians attacking muslims' to the barbary states.  They wanted to stay out of the holy war aspect of it and were stating that religion had nothing to do with their end of the hostilities, even tho the same could not be said for the barbary states.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Treaty of Tripoli



> The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document.
> 
> The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:
> 
> ...


----------



## peach174 (May 26, 2011)

Words and actions must work together.
We used to be able to do a handshake on a business deal and it was as good as a contract.
You did not break that handshake contract, you followed through with it.

George Washington;      &#8220;Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor...

      &#8220;Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the twenty-sixth day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these Unites States...that we then may all unite unto him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...

      &#8220;And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions...to promote the knowledge and practice of the true religion and virtue...

      &#8220;Given under my hand, at the City of New York, the 3rd of October, A.D. 1789.&#8221;

Great Lord and Ruler of Nations - Jesus Christ
True Religion - Christianity.


----------



## Newby (May 26, 2011)

Also from what I've read, the treaty was only on the books for 8 years and then it was renegotiated and Article 11 was completely dropped from it.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



You don't think so?   Are you not aware that Official documents are required to be kept in our National Archives?  Have you not seen the frequently linked article on the Treaty of Tripoli which had pictures of the original English language version of the Treaty?

First you say that the Declaration trumps the Treaty....wrong.

And now you say an official government treaty has not been kept archived by our government?   Seriously?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Good grief what a dope you are.


----------



## del (May 26, 2011)




----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Good grief what a dope you are.



You and Newby are wasting your time on that dope. I myself am merely awaiting that glorious day when Bode finds out for 100% certain that her hatred of Christianity was the wrong path. Oh what a glorious day that will be. The only thing that would be better is if I could somehow participate in the events that lead to her understanding that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




The treaty does not say we are divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena. 

James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say _America_ is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the _government_ of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.   The nation is not the same as the government.   The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89.    Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nations social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.

But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty.   I make the following observations:

1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation.   Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:

*Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, does not exist at all. There is no Article 11.   The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.   How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.*

A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an infidel (non-Islamic) nation like the United States.   The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document.  Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.

2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly.   Consider Barlows translation of Article 12:

*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 Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference 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 observation of the same.*

However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation of Article 12:

*Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article.    If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter.   We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him);  may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!*

The differences between the two translations are obvious.

3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation.   Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist.   Some have speculated that Barlows religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty.   However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.

4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesnt matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a meeting of minds.   If A contracts to sell his house to B, and As version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while Bs version lists the selling price as $100,000,  there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract.   If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract;  if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid.   At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11;  therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.

5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801.   The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806.   The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.

All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.

Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783.   The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence.   And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris.   It begins with the words: In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity .

Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties « Firm Foundation


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Is the Treaty of Paris before or after our Secular Constitution went into effect?

Is the Treaty of Tripoli before or after or Secular Constitution went into effect?


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief what a dope you are.
> ...



Good morning.      I see I'm still on your mind.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



yep, as I said I pray everyday that you will soon find out that your views about Christianity are wrong.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It doesn't matter. This country was founded before the Constitution was written.

Besides Article 11 is not in the Treaty of Tripoli.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.

It's always like the first time for bod, though.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.
> 
> It's always like the first time for bod, though.



But but but, she has a degree in history. I think it was from the University of Third Reich.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Again.  Hello.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Our current government is established by the Constitution...it matters a great deal because that is the ACTION our country is based upon regardless of past WORDS.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.
> ...



Hello...er...how should  I address  you now?


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.
> 
> It's always like the first time for bod, though.



Points?   How about actual LAWS  (the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli).   How about ACTIONS?   Slavery, Indian Treatment, treatment of Mormons, etc.?

Not just WORDS.   Tho, I suspect that you are easily led by just WORDS.   All someone would have to do is SAY something that fits your preconceived notions and they'd be able to take you for all you are worth.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

You're a fucking idiot. You really are. What was the highest grade you achieved? I'm honestly curious.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

And negged for subjecting us to complete intellectual garbage.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Maybe so, but we're not talking about the founding of our government. We're talking about the founding of this Nation which preceded the formation of government.


Face it, you've been owned nine ways to Sunday on this thread. Give it up!


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Wait...you are attempting to say the founding of our nation has nothing to do with our government, our constitution, the heart of what makes us what we are?

Seriously?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You've struck on the absolute core center of the whole concept in this debate/discussion/food fight.  Some do not wish to ackinowledge the thought processes, debates, discussions, and concepts that went into first the Declaration of Independence which, after a long and bloody war, resulted in a people free to form whatever sort of nation they wanted.  Those concepts were further developed in more thought processes, debates, discussions, and new concepts that became the fundamental purposes written into the U.S. Constitution.

It wasn't done in back rooms or under the cloak of darkness.  It was done openly in the bright light and hidden to no one.  It took twelve long years from the signing of the declaration to the ratification of the Constitution.  When the Revolutionary War ended giving them time to work on it, they took six years of careful consideration before offering the final document for ratification.

There have been many human failings, many mistakes made, many miscalculations, many injustices, and many horrendous acts in the history of our country.  And NONE of those negate in any way that it was the Christian principle of unalienable rights given by God and untouchable by man that gave us the Constitution and the nation we have.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No I don't believe I said anything of the sort nor attempted to.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Our current government is established by the Constitution...



You're working very hard to change that, though.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

LOL @ you guys thinking Bode will EVER concede anything in a thread. SHe had her mind made up before she even posted and that's that.

I pray that she meets the Lord soon and discovers how awesome He really is.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No one ever said we "were divorced from God". Why do you make stuff up?
You damn well know, if you can read which I am seriously wondering about your abilties there as I have posted NUMEROUS TIMES:
1. The nation was/is Christian.
2. Christianity influences society in a positive way then/now/ALWAYS
3. The Founderswere primarily Christian.
So your bull shit "were divorced from God" holds no weight with any of my arguments.
And your claim that our laws are based on Biblical values? LOL, man that is so off base it is absurd. An eye for an eye? Stoning to death for adultery?
Lonestar, like I have told you time and time again, give it up, your arguments are so out there is is far beyond credibility.
Thomas Jefferson was a Founder. Minsters ALL OVER THE COLONIES HATED HIM. 
Well DUH, guess why? They labeled him as a "true infidel"because of his ANTI CHRISTIAN WRITINGS EVERYWHERE.
But you ignore that like the plague as you vote, do business, believe and worship only WHAT YOU HEAR OTHERS SAY, not what they do with their actions and their written word.
Because your Christian ideology forces you to ignore all facts in support of your ideology.
Thomas Jefferson wrote numerous papers concerning his disdain for Christianity: "There is not one redeeming feature of our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools".
And you folks claim with a straight face that this man founded the nation on Christianity? 
Why? Because your own superstitions and ideology FORCES YOU TO.
Ignore the facts and follow fables, superstition and IDEOLOGY.
Preachers all over the colonies condemned Jefferson and many of the Founders for their writings about Christianity and the negative influences it had on government: Pastor William Linn "Jefferson does not believe in the divine revelation and wants to introduce immorality and destroy religion. Jefferson is the true infidel."
He led the charge of CHURCHES AND PREACHERS OPPOSED to Jefferson in the damn election!
And you folks claimed these Founders founded the nation on Christianity when it was the churches and preachers opposing them. 
Words mean more than actions. 
Ideology over practice. You folks are closet liberals.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.

More garbage.

Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.
> 
> More garbage.
> 
> Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...




I disagree with GDog on a few things , but he comes across as at MINIMUM twice as smart as Bode, one assumes she dropped out of the 7th grade, so that would make him a junior college grad at MINIMUM.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Did I say anyone made that claim?

NOOOOO!!

Why do you use Old Testament law in your examples?

You do know that when Jesus arrived a new covenant was made.

If you agree that this nation was founded on Christian principles, why are you arguing with me?

Jefferson was hated?  I'd have to see some evidence of that.

President Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant. Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican). He was also influenced by English Deists and has often been identified by historians as a Deist. He held many beliefs in common with Unitarians of the time period, and sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/religion.html]. 

Jefferson was one of many founding fathers the majority of which were Christian.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.

When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

That's what happens when you consider Nora Roberts books "history".


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.
> 
> More garbage.
> 
> Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...



Bachelor of Business Administration UGA Double major Finance and Business Law
Masters of Business Administration GSU  Tax accounting, management and finance
Forensics Certification Georgia Board of Private Detectives 
Agency License Georgia Board of Private Detectives 
Investigated over 5000 criminal and civil cases since 1979.
Tesfitified in over 500 cases
Wrote the Georgia Private Detective Agency License Test with 4 others in 2009.

You?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

I don't believe it. Nobody who can't distinguish fact from fiction could have those creds.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.
> 
> When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.



The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.
> ...



Persecuted might be a little strong. And yes they were imprisoned for breaking the law at the time. Obviously the whole slavery system was wrong, and so to were laws that made it illegal to aid escaped slaves......


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I don't believe it. Nobody who can't distinguish fact from fiction could have those creds.



Ask Sonny Perdue, former governor of Georgia who he appointed to write the test for Agency License Holder.
Go to the Georgia Secretary of State's Professional Licensing Board and see where I was licensed in 1982 and then in 1985 my FULL AGENCY LICENSE with every other license here is from them, the top tier license.
How about we put up $50,000 a piece if you do not believe my credentials.

BBA and then finished up at GSU in 1985.

How about you call all of the top trial lawyers all over Georgia and ask them who has been their investigator since 1982? 

Typical Allie, she is embarrased by her lack of any education and is jealous of anyone and everyone that does have one.
You are a closet LIBERAL. 

$50,000.??


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...





When one is jailed for their religous beliefs HOW IS CALLING IT PERSECUTED "A LITTLE STRONG"?
No offense Brain, but damn, please think next time.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Meh, when I think of persecuted I think of the way Christians were treated in the early days of the Roman empire. Or I think of the way Jews were treated in NAZI Germany, or the way blacks were treated in this country until around the early 1970s. I just think persecuted is a term that is thrown around all too often.

That doesn't mean I think that people can't be treated poorly and unfairly without it being persecution though, so don't get me wrong on that point. It's just a matter of degrees that I disagree with you about.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
It was more than a hundred years before the Revolution. Our founding fathers weren't even alive.

What complete lunacy.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Any minute now High Gravity or whatever his name is will come along whining about how people who don't hire out of work losers are worse than racists.

It's completely irrelevant to this convo, besides being ridiculous in and of itself. Quakers did very, VERY well in this country.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

"By the close of the seventeenth century, persecution of Quakers, both legal and social, had essentially ceased. Tolerance legislation ended the legal persecution, and the Quakers&#8217; own entrepreneurial success won them social respect as well. "

Quakers in America: From Persecution through Toleration to Domination

Can we please stop with the stupid Quaker straw man now?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



Fugitive Slave Act

That would be 1850 DUMBASS.
"any person aiding runaway slaves by providing food, shelter or support will be imprisoned for 6 months and fined $1000."
DUMBASS ALLIE.
Go away. There is intelligent life here.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

That isn't religious persecution, dumbass.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

I'll bet you were a spectacular investigator.

I mean, your cognitive abilities shine so.


----------



## Dante (May 26, 2011)

The USA was NOT founded on Christianity and that is a fact.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

No, it's not. But thanks for coming late...there can never be too many stupid comments in a thread that refuses to die.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

Dante said:


> The USA was NOT founded on Christianity and that is a fact.



 

Sorry, I just to laugh at someone who comes screaming into a thread to declare that something that no one was even arguing was true is false.


----------



## Iridescence (May 26, 2011)

Perhaps the whole issue with this argument isn't whether the USA is/isn't... eh, was/wasn't founded on Christianity... defined or redefined but rather wtf are we gonna do with it now? :-/ Seriously... WHO is bartering WHAT?! And what man can be about the WHO? We can be so easily distracted and that isn't always a good thing....


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



So.  We won't be hearing any more about those who came over to this country to practice their own religion?   Is that it?   Because those first people were over a 100 years before the Revolution too, Allie.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Hi, I'm still praying that you meet the Lord soon.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "By the close of the seventeenth century, persecution of Quakers, both legal and social, had essentially ceased. Tolerance legislation ended the legal persecution, and the Quakers own entrepreneurial success won them social respect as well. "
> 
> Quakers in America: From Persecution through Toleration to Domination
> 
> Can we please stop with the stupid Quaker straw man now?



The Quakers, I'm sure, appreciate you belittling the persecution they experienced in Europe and in Colonial America.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

I'm not belittling Quakers. I'm belittling you for thinking that it has any place in this debate.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

It's the tried and true..."I LIKE MACARONI!" argument....when people are talking about car engines.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not belittling Quakers. I'm belittling you for thinking that it has any place in this debate.



The Quakers were the religious group whose Principles came CLOSEST to the founding tenets of this country and they were prosecuted, persecuted and killed by the Other, more dominant Christian denominations....and you think they don't have any place in this debate?




Just like you don't think the Truism "Actions speak louder than words" doesn't have any place in this debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.



What a coincidence - neither does bod.....


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea what you're talking about.
> ...



Hi, Uncensored.   I certainly appreciate you making this about me.   It really strengthens your side of the discussion....


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not belittling Quakers. I'm belittling you for thinking that it has any place in this debate.
> ...


 
Er..ok, whatever you say.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2011)

Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.

Set up in their own colony away from the Puritans, the Quakers also were among the most tolerant of organized religious groups by allowing all minority religious groups to live in peace among them.  And while opposition to slavery was almost universally spoken by Christians over all, the Quakers were the first organized American abolitionist group.

It should be noted, however, that the intolerance of the Puritans had also pretty well phased out and was no more by the end of the 17th Century.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Again, Allie.  You really don't need to sign your posts....smilies or not.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.
> 
> Set up in their own colony away from the Puritans, the Quakers also were among the most tolerant of organized religious groups by allowing all minority religious groups to live in peace among them.  And while opposition to slavery was almost universally spoken by Christians over all, the Quakers were the first organized American abolitionist group.
> 
> *It should be noted, however, that the intolerance of the Puritans had also pretty well phased out and was no more by the end of the 17th Century*.



And the Founders, learning from the abuses of a Christian based society....made sure that mistake was not repeated.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

What utter crap.


----------



## Spoonman (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.
> 
> Set up in their own colony away from the Puritans, the Quakers also were among the most tolerant of organized religious groups by allowing all minority religious groups to live in peace among them.  And while opposition to slavery was almost universally spoken by Christians over all, the Quakers were the first organized American abolitionist group.
> 
> It should be noted, however, that the intolerance of the Puritans had also pretty well phased out and was no more by the end of the 17th Century.



What year did the scientologists come over?


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> What utter crap.





Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.
> ...



I implore the two of you to join me in praying that Bode meet the Lord soon.


----------



## Spoonman (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.
> ...



Yes, by taking government completely out of the equation   -  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

it's too bad a bunch of liberal judges had to re interpret it and screw up the original intent


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Like the Puritans, the Quakers came to the new world to escape religious persecution.  And of all religious groups represented in the New World, the Quakers were closest in religious beliefs to the Puritans.  But the Quakers refused to pay tithes to the Puritan-estbalished state church, refused to remove their hats in deference to authority, and refused to conform in some other ways to religious uniformity demanded by the Puritans.  Thus many Quakers were imprisoned, put in stocks, punished, and hung, sometimes as witches.
> ...



Nope.  The Founders made sure that people like the Puritan and the Quakers would have complete freedom to form whatever sort of society they wished.  From the Puritans we got the most rigid, punitive, intolerant bunch of people that existed in the country to that time.  And yet no theocracy developed, and the Puritan theocracy phased itself out by its own choice.  From the Quakers we got a gentler Puritan discipline, examples of religious tolerance, and the first abolitionist movement.

People who have their rights secured and who are then left alone to govern themselves, will form a far superior society than will one under the thumb of an authoritarian government.

The Founders gave us a nation in which the federal government would not interfere with the people's religion.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > What utter crap.
> ...



Hello again.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Exactly.  Because they had seen exactly what happens when people try to model their government along what they consider acceptable religious lines.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Still praying, looking forward to the news that you have met the Lord. It will be a glorious day, please hurry.


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...



  Nothing says Sincerity like one of thos "Bless your heart"  American-style Christianity moments.   

Hello again conj...I mean, TheBrain.


----------



## TheBrain (May 26, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Oh, I'm quite sincere here. My fondest wish is for you to meet my Lord and Savior. I can only hope that the meeting will be revealed via this website or other media sources.

If I had means to hastening this meeting, I would not hesitate to employ them. 

Please Lord reveal thyself to Bode in a spectacular manner that even she can not argue with.


----------



## 8atman (May 26, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ask the Indians how the wording of "their lands and property will never be taken from them" worked out for them in The 1787 Congressional Land Act.


(Pardon me just a sec while I move this strawman out of the way.............there we go.)

Does the wording of the act contain the words, for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity? Did the government intend to promote the Christian conversion of the Indians? Did the government, in fact, implement that program? Did they spend money in doing so? Did Jefferson extend the program no less than three times? Well?

Contrast these actions to your claim that the Founders believed that religion and government were mutually exclusive and never promoted Christianity.




			
				Gadawg73 said:
			
		

> Politicians SAY anything for the masses. LAW is what counts.


Make up your mind already; you cant have it both ways. 

Before I get to that, if LAW is what counts, I just finished discussing a LAW that directly contradicts your position. In fact, you avoided discussing several laws in my last post because they fly in the face of your claims.

Now, back to public political statements and your own flip-flops. When confronted with evidence you dont like, you tell us we should listen to the Founders statements. For example, you made the claim, The Founders SPOKE PUBLICLY they wanted NO PART of any religion anywhere in government. So, if you think theyre agreeing with you, then we can listen to them, but, when youre confronted with Founders quotes that you dont like, you say, Politicians SAY anything for the masses. Well, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

Lastly, lets take a look for just a moment at your societal placation theory: Politicians SAY anything for the masses. Theres just a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy little problem with that, at least as you apply it to the Founders. Are you aware we have quite a bit of the Founders private writings? (Ive already mentioned in my last post James Madisons notes in his personal Bible.) We also have the writings of their colleagues commenting on them and their views. All of it fully agrees and is consistent with their public statements. Were they trying to placate themselves?


----------



## bodecea (May 26, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TheBrain said:
> ...




Having a nice evening, Conj...I mean TheBrain?


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 27, 2011)

President, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."
America is not a Christian nation - Michael Lind - Salon.com

The US is not a theocracy nor was it ever designed to be.  Someone needs to inform the Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionist.


----------



## Newby (May 27, 2011)

No one is saying it's a theocrasy, so your arguing a point that doesn't exist.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 27, 2011)

There is a movement to make the US a Christian theocracy.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> President, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."
> America is not a Christian nation - Michael Lind - Salon.com
> 
> The US is not a theocracy nor was it ever designed to be. Someone needs to inform the Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionist.


 
Moron, nobody said it was a theocracy. The tragedy of this thread is that Bod, you and a select couple of others can't grasp the concept that the founding fathers founded the country upon Christian precepts...but it is NOT a theocracy.

So glad you're here. Now we can add another 200 pages of moronic musings. If anyone is more ridiculous and ignorant than Bod, it has to be you.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

Newby said:


> No one is saying it's a theocrasy, so your arguing a point that doesn't exist.


 
Sky's specialty.

She should marry Bod.


----------



## bodecea (May 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > No one is saying it's a theocrasy, so your arguing a point that doesn't exist.
> ...



Good morning, Allie.   Thinking of me this early already?


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > President, John Tyler, in an 1843 letter: "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma, if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions."
> ...



Just imagine if L Ron Hubbard had been a founding father


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



it's 2:30


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

It's 11:30 here and I'm PST.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I either am making the point poorly or you aren't quite grasping the point here I think.

The Founders gave us a federal government that would not interfere with the people's religion because they had seen what happens when government attempts to control the people's religious beliefs or deny the people the free exercise of their religion.  The government they gave us, however,  WAS modeled according to principles arising out of their Christian beliefs that unalienable rights come from God, and it was a government that they knew would work only if those who governed were a moral people who lived by those Christian convictions..

That does not infer that all do not fall short of the ideal now and then and it does not infer that some other than Christian would not hold the same convictions.   But they knew it would be mostly Christians or others who understood and accepted the concept of unalienable rights that would make it work.

As soon as we have more people who reject the Christian concept of unalienable rights than those who embrace it, the United States of America as we have known it will no longer be the great nation they gave us.  I think we are in serious danger of that now.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

That's exactly what one of the FF said. I think it was Jefferson.


----------



## peach174 (May 27, 2011)

Yep we certainly are. I totally agree with you Foxfyre.
That's why we have so many going into these fast food restaurants trashing them and stealing things and beating up people. Also people walking past people without helping in any way at all.


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I think she's trying to spin it.  

The founding fathers were very explicit. They set up government so government could not manipulate religion. Where religion was concerned, the ytook government out of the picture.  - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;   there is no ambiguity there.  Congress shall make no law. Government is out of how religion operates. 


That's fact one.   However, the other point is was our government set up on christian tenants, yes it was. They are all over the place.  The diference is, the government is not run by religion.


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Yep we certainly are. I totally agree with you Foxfyre.
> That's why we have so many going into these fast food restaurants trashing them and stealing things and beating up people. Also people walking past people without helping in any way at all.



our morals are shot. anyone who is like most of us. middle age, can tell you moral values of today are totally diferent for the 50's and 60's.   we live in a different world. a life has no value to many. people will stand by and watch a young girl get raped and video tape the damn thing to put on youtube.  And it is becasue we have pushed God and as a result morals out of our lives. Let me rephrase, we've legislated religion out of our lives.  The congess who shall make no laws regarding has been given an open door to prohibit. And that's just what they've done


----------



## peach174 (May 27, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep we certainly are. I totally agree with you Foxfyre.
> ...




Exactly- it reminds me of the song-Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till its gone.


----------



## peach174 (May 27, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You take God out of the Government you have a congress and government that has no morals or discipline which is what we have now.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And you have an ever larger electorate who allow, even want them to be that way.


----------



## del (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



what makes it a christian concept?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

del said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So far as I know, nobody else other than Christians have studied the foundations and philosophies of their religious beliefs and come to a conclusion of unalienable rights that come from God.    There are several religions that claim entitlement and blessings via their various diety or dieties, but I don't believe there is any other who promote a concept of God given unalienable rights.


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Yep,   they paved our paradise and turned it into a no parking zone


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actuallly i thought we had the keystone cops


----------



## bodecea (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


When would you say that God was taken out of the Government...and let's run a comparison as to morals and discipline then and now....ok?


----------



## bodecea (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



that's where you step away from reality....that is not a Christian concept.



> and it was a government that they knew would work only if those who governed were a moral people who lived by those Christian convictions..
> 
> That does not infer that all do not fall short of the ideal now and then and it does not infer that some other than Christian would not hold the same convictions.   But they knew it would be mostly Christians or others who understood and accepted the concept of unalienable rights that would make it work.
> 
> As soon as we have more people who reject the Christian concept of unalienable rights than those who embrace it, the United States of America as we have known it will no longer be the great nation they gave us.  I think we are in serious danger of that now.


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



ok, but we;re going to have to leave the kennedy's out because they will throw off the curve


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The words in the Preamble "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are editorialized from Blackstone's Commentaries which would be found in just about every educated colonial home.  (Blackstone used "Property" which Jefferson amended to "Pursuit of Happiness"  from Ecclesiastes 3:13 knowing that all educated colonialists would make the proper connection.)

The concept that such unalienable rights  (Franklin's word rather than inalienable, but meaning the same thing), are from God however, was right out of the Christian Bible.  Some examples:

The Law of Nature - Romans 2:14-16
The Creator is the Author of life - Genesis 2:7
God, not government, grants liberty - Galatians 5:1


----------



## bodecea (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Ignoring Locke, are we?


----------



## bodecea (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Bump.


----------



## JScott (May 27, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Yep we certainly are. I totally agree with you Foxfyre.
> That's why we have so many going into these fast food restaurants trashing them and stealing things and beating up people. Also people walking past people without helping in any way at all.



This has been going on forever.


----------



## Rodack (May 27, 2011)

Democrats despise Christians and Chistian US heritage


The European Athiest Homo party which demands your wages and labor despise this country with all their heart and soul




Democrats are evil


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Irrelevent to the topic at hand.  I'm sure if you started a thread comparing the morality of today with the personal accountability, integrity and discipline of the Founders, there would certainly be some willing to discuss that.  You might want to think about it before wading in, however, as you have not won too many debate points so far.


----------



## JScott (May 27, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Democrats despise Christians and Chistian US heritage
> 
> 
> The European Athiest Homo party which demands your wages and labor despise this country with all their heart and soul
> ...



Most democrats are Christian. Kind of nils your argument.


----------



## JScott (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The morality, personal accountability, integrity and discipline of yesterday was no different from today. You have some good eggs and you have some bad. Benedict Arnold comes to mind.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

JScott said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Again that might make a good discussion topic, but it is still irrelevent to the subject of this thread.


----------



## JScott (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



95% of this country is Christian. How is God not in the picture?


----------



## Obamerican (May 27, 2011)

JScott said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > JScott said:
> ...


Link for that 95% please..........................


----------



## JScott (May 27, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



My bad, I was just using standard quotes from Christians on this site. Here is the most recent survey-

According to a 2007 survey, 78.4% of adults identified themselves as Christian,[148] down from 86.4% in 1990.
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



John Locke's concepts of natural law and social contract are usually required reading in any good basic economics course.  However John Locke was not a Founding Father, he died before I believe all of the Founding Fathers were born, he was never an American or in America, so yeah, for the purposes of this thread topic, I am pretty well ignoring him.

If you do wish to discuss natural law, social contract, or theories of economics on another thread though, I'm pretty sure he would come up sooner or later.


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Democrats despise Christians and Chistian US heritage
> 
> 
> The European Athiest Homo party which demands your wages and labor despise this country with all their heart and soul
> ...



Ah...a believer that Our Country was Founded on Christian tenets.   Tell us more, sir.


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Are you inferring that John Locke was NOT the major influence on Jefferson when writing that phrase in the Dec of Ind?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, I think Blackstone was the major influence when writing that phrase though the language itself was probably borrowed from Locke's Second Treatise.  Locke was among many of the Renaissance/Enlightenment theorists and innovators that informed Jefferson and many others including David Hume, Adam Smith, Frances Hutcheson, David Ricardo, Voltaire, and Montesquieu to name a few.  And the concept of natural/unalienable rights as coming from God was inspired by the Bible and those theologians who explored such a concept.

I can imagine that our Founders debated the theories of all these great thinkers at length.

They didn't teach you all this when you were getting that history degree?


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Good article on Locke's influence.   Declaration of Independence - Give No Credit to Jefferson, They Were All Locke's Ideas - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

It's kind of funny watching you guys try so hard to make the founding of our country about Christian tenets and all...when the founders were running away from the Christian tenets they'd seen with the Puritans and Europe.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's kind of funnier watching you use a post by a member on another board as some kind of authority.  Do you never have an original thought of your own?  Can you defend your argument with anything with that fancy history degree of yours?


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I thought that person said it well rather than me taking the time...but apparently it hurt your feelings in some way.

So tell me, what was wrong with what the link said.   I'm listening.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I apologize for going ad hominem even by inference.  I try not to do that and it was wrong of me to do it.

There's nothing wrong with your link.  It's a link to a person on another board expressing an opinion.  It is an opinion typical of those who do not want to give the Founders any credit for coming up with a brand new concept of government that was based on Christian principles.  To leave the writings of John Locke or any other documents that guided the thought processes out of the whole would be short sighted.  To give John Locke more credit than credit is due is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.   I don't know the person who wrote the post you linked, so I have no way of knowing his/her intent or where s/he was going with that post.

John Locke gave us a lot to think about and he happens to be one of my heroes.  But John Locke, in his wildest dreams, never envisioned a nation that the Founders gave us.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (May 28, 2011)

> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
> in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
> are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
> women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
> ...



Thomas Jefferson

This  statement from Thomas Jefferson** should have settled any nonsense about the founding fathers and their religion.  Obviously it did not.  In fact, I'd not be surprised to read that a movement was being undertaken in one or more zealous Christian States to remove any mention of Thomas Jefferson from all the history books.  

** wrote the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights as well as figuring prominently in the penning of the Constitution.



> People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.



Dave Barry


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

Poli_Sigh said:


> > "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
> > in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
> > are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
> > women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
> ...



Okay, would you like to cite the source for your quotation that floats around almost all anti Christian sites?  I have yet to see a single verifiable notation for it but have seen numerous comments from credible authorities that Jefferson never said or wrote the first sentence of your post.  It has been manufactured by one desperate to make America other than a Christian nation and is eagerly embraced by those who share that anti-Christian perspective.  I suppose it falls into the cateogory of repeating a lie so often that even smart people start believing it.

Jefferson deplored how humankind had corrupted and changed the Christian faith from what he believed Jesus gave us, but, while his own religious beliefs were unorthodox for his day, he did not, to the best of my knowledge, ever denounce Jesus of Nazareth or the Christian faith.

Let's use Jefferson's own words that rebut yours and include the source:

*Thomas Jefferson 
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence *

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." 
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237. 

"I am a real Christian &#8211; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." 
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385. 

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson letter to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



However, how can you ignore that Jefferson himself gave credit to John Locke?


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Poli_Sigh said:


> > "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
> > in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
> > are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
> > women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
> ...



Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights and was out of country for the Constitutional Convention.  Perhaps you are thinking of his protege', James Madison.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



How can you ignore that I didn't ignore that Jefferson himself gave credit to John Locke as well as a whole lot of other people?


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well then, we are at an impasse....which brings me back to the adage, "Actions Speak Louder than Words" as to the founding and running of our country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2011)

With the 2 fucking morons in the White House Dems REALLY want to discuss intelligence?

Obama dosent know how many states there are in the USA rounded to he nearest 10, doesnt know what Memorial Day is, doesn't know how to pledge allegiance, doesn't know what makes America great and has a VP who if he was a fucking moron it would double his IQ


----------



## TheBrain (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Still haven't met the Lord? Damn, I wish I could help hasten that meeting. Oh what a glorious day it will be. I'm going to ask my church to pray for you tomorrow.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's right.   The Founders used a Christian principle that unalienable rights come from God and therefore are inviolate and gave us the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most productive nation the world had ever known.   They took twelve years, including a long bloody war, to win our freedom and give us the Constitution that would secure those rights when administered by a moral and religious people.

That was the action that backs up the words.

There wasn't a perfect man or saint among them, but they were all good, decent men with a shared vision and commitment.  And overall they did a pretty good job of living by their convictions.  The great experiment was successful beyond ever their vision.

For the last hundred years both Democrats and Republcans have been whittling away at fundamental principles they gave us.   We haven't lost it all yet, but if educated and committed people don't act to stop that erosion, we will lose the country as we have known it.


----------



## YaMutha (May 28, 2011)

Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Bless your heart, hello.


----------



## bodecea (May 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So...a hundred years, huh...our Country was run on those Christian principles until about 100 years ago?  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 29, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No dear.  I haven't said anything like that, but we've come pretty well full circle in this argument and it seems you don't have any argument of any kind of your own to make and will continue to reword and ask the same questions over and over.  And I'm beginning to find that really boring.  So I am unlikely to respond to this routine further.

Hope all is enjoying the long weekend.  I'm headed for my pillow and a good movie.  Good night.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Hi, Uncensored.   I certainly appreciate you making this about me.   It really strengthens your side of the discussion....



Nothing can "strengthen your side," bod - you lost this debate 3 weeks ago.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

del said:


> what makes it a christian concept?



The FACT that they arose from the "free agency" concepts of Luther and Calvin.

Why do you ask?


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Uncensored.   I certainly appreciate you making this about me.   It really strengthens your side of the discussion....
> ...





       
and with a whistle too !


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> that's where you step away from reality....that is not a Christian concept.



Too bad you didn't expend the effort to gain some semblance of education. Individual liberty and the concept that man is responsible directly to God, not to Popes, Kings or Community Organizers comes directly from the Protestant reformers.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Uncensored.   I certainly appreciate you making this about me.   It really strengthens your side of the discussion....
> ...



How so....?   The United States was and still is a secular-ly founded country.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > that's where you step away from reality....that is not a Christian concept.
> ...



Our rights are natural.  We are born with them like we are born with eyes and ears and arms and legs.   If you want to believe in a god that gave them to you...fine.   If you want to believe in more than one god  who gave them to you...fine.   But, you do not have the right to say that we all MUST believe that rights were given by YOUR god.   Sorry.  It doesn't work that way....and the Founders knew that too...that's why they did not specify a Christian god at all in our governing documents.

Feel free to believe what YOU want...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> How so....?   The United States was and still is a secular-ly founded country.



It's amusing how 8atman forced you to admit that the nation was founded on Christian principles, you wait a couple of days, then pretend it never happened.

Look, I'm basically a bystander in this thread; but between 8atman, Foxfyre and Allie, you have been utterly and irrevocably defeated.

Your inability to grasp this makes the train-wreck of your arguments all the more entertaining!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Our rights are natural.  We are born with them like we are born with eyes and ears and arms and legs.



Seems such a simple concept now, but like most things, you are reciting what you have learned. You learned what you did because illustrious thinkers detailed and defined the concepts in a way that has withstood centuries of challenge and debate. The thinkers in this case were primarily Luther and Calvin. "Free Agency" is a 100% Protestant, Christian idea. 

Agnostics such as myself can easily see the wisdom and truth in these ideals, but I have the integrity and education to recognize and acknowledge the source of these ideas. 



> If you want to believe in a god that gave them to you...fine.



Again, you are either lost in irrelevancy or feebly attempting to employ a red herring.

The reformers changed the dynamic of how people interacted with and viewed the hierarchical structure of society. The nearly global precept prior to that, and outside of Protestant influence even to this day, is that man is born to a role. Peasants to toil and labor, nobility to rule. The Protestants offered the most radical idea that the world of man had seen, that each individual was beholden to no one, that we are responsible to and for ourselves. They viewed man as answerable to god, but that isn't necessary in the ideal that our rights are not granted by Kings or Community Organizers, we have no duty to serve any other man. We are free by our innate nature and those who seek to impose through force or coercion are oppressors.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Where was it said that you MUST believe (You have the freedom to be an atheist or any religion you want)

George Washington believed in a Christian God as did the majority did at that time. As do the majority of Americans now.


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

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

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

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

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

Go: Washington


Notice where it says - Great Lord and Ruler of Nations? 
That is a reference to Jesus Christ who will return to rule all the Nations on Earth.

To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue. (Christianity)


Everyone has the freedom to worship or not worship.
The majority of this nation has been and still is Christian. But it does not mean that everyone in America MUST be Christian.


by the way -the above is a governing document.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > How so....?   The United States was and still is a secular-ly founded country.
> ...



Forced me?   Ah....that's how you use your religion is it....to FORCE people?  

Sorry, but the Founders forced nobody.   They left it very, very clear that one could believe that their rights came from whatever we believed in and we were not FORCED to believe that our rights came from a Christian god.    Are  you unhappy that they didn't FORCE people?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How nice.  A Proclamation.   How many laws did that proclamation create?   How many ACTIONS by our government were taken because of that Proclamation?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Moron.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

Our Nation, as others before us, helped to spread Christianity around the world. (Action)
You ignored this part;
To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue. (Christianity)


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Our Nation, as others before us, helped to spread Christianity around the world. (Action)



I'm sure places like Hawaii appreciated that......



> You ignored this part;
> To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue. (Christianity)



I'm sorry, but it is the kind of arrogance this country was formed to AVOID that says "true religion and virtue" when referring to only one religion.

Not everyone is a Christian.

Not everyone WANTS to be a Christian.

Not everyone APPRECIATES Christians wanting them to be Christian.

Not everyone BELIEVES that Christians have the right answer.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Doesn't matter, and has absolutely no bearing on whether the US was founded upon Christian tenets.

Of course it was. Lincoln knew it (and said it), Obama knows it (and said it), and our FF knew it and said it.

But Bod knows better.

What a joke she is.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Doesn't matter, and has absolutely no bearing on whether the US was founded upon Christian tenets.



Correct.  Because we were not.  We were founded on Enlightenment tenets...and the Enlightenment was a Philosophical movement away from Theocratic control.

[qutoe]Of course it was. Lincoln knew it (and said it), Obama knows it (and said it), and our FF knew it and said it.[/quote]

Said it.   But Actions speak louder than words.....something you continually refuse to acknowledge because you know it blows all your little quotes right out of the water.



> But Bod knows better.
> 
> What a joke she is.



Apparently a "joke" that you've got stuck in your craw since you are spending so much time and effort on me....as seen by the current score in my sig.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

You betcha, ignoramus.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

a little information about Hawaii and Christianity by England, not America.

King Kamehameha IV and his wife Emma were Christian rulers who encouraged the building of Christian schools and hospitals, and who contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity among the Hawaiian people. The King was worried by the growth of American political influence, directly connected with the work of American missionaries, many of whom openly favored annexation of the islands by the United States. He accordingly invited the Church of England to send missionaries and to establish a presence in Hawaii. (While touring England as a prince, he had attended worship services, and had been favorably impressed.) But, although the King's support of the Church of England was perhaps politically motivated, his support of Christianity was not. He and his wife were earnest in their devotion to both the material and the spiritual welfare of their people. The King personally translated the Book of Common Prayer and much of the Hymnal into Hawaiian. Their only son died in 1863, and the King died, apparently of grief, on 30 November 1864. The Queen devoted the remainder of her life to charitable endeavors (Queen's Hospital, the largest civilian hospital in Hawaii, is largely her doing). She died in 1885.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> a little information about Hawaii and Christianity by England, not America.
> 
> King Kamehameha IV and his wife Emma were Christian rulers who encouraged the building of Christian schools and hospitals, and who contributed greatly to the spread of Christianity among the Hawaiian people. The King was worried by the growth of American political influence, directly connected with the work of American missionaries, many of whom openly favored annexation of the islands by the United States. He accordingly invited the Church of England to send missionaries and to establish a presence in Hawaii. (While touring England as a prince, he had attended worship services, and had been favorably impressed.) But, although the King's support of the Church of England was perhaps politically motivated, his support of Christianity was not. He and his wife were earnest in their devotion to both the material and the spiritual welfare of their people. The King personally translated the Book of Common Prayer and much of the Hymnal into Hawaiian. Their only son died in 1863, and the King died, apparently of grief, on 30 November 1864. The Queen devoted the remainder of her life to charitable endeavors (Queen's Hospital, the largest civilian hospital in Hawaii, is largely her doing). She died in 1885.



That's nice.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> You betcha, ignoramus.



Allie, you really don't need to announce yourself on this thread so much.  We know you're here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Forced me?   Ah....that's how you use your religion is it....to FORCE people?



What a flaccid attempt...

Say goodnight Gracie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> That's nice.



Facts are such pesky things that you just wave them away, dismissively...


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > That's nice.
> ...



Oh wait...this is you telling me what I think and feel again, isn't it?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Forced me?   Ah....that's how you use your religion is it....to FORCE people?
> ...



Can't help but notice that you can't even start to get your point across without cutting out MOST of my post.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Oh wait...this is you telling me what I think and feel again, isn't it?



No dummy, it's me acknowledging your behavior.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Can't help but notice that you can't even start to get your point across without cutting out MOST of my post.



My point was perfectly clear to all those with an IQ greater than 50.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Nobody reads your posts in their entirety anymore, Bod. They quit doing that ages ago.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Our Nation, as others before us, helped to spread Christianity around the world. (Action)
> ...




That is the beauty of this Nation that you can believe or not believe what you want.
The point of this thread is that Christianity was the foundation of this nation and I quoted a proclamation of our first president who believed in Christianity not enlightenment.
But you have the right to believe in enlightenment tenants if you want to.

That quote from the proclamation, where it is said true religion, comes from the bible where Christ says in John 14:6
Jesus said; I am the way,the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
You can never be forced to Christianity Bod
Islam with some on the other hand is trying to force their religion.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Exactly



> The point of this thread is that Christianity was the foundation of this nation



No, the point of this thread is that Christianity is NOT the foundation of this nation....look at the title again.



> and I quoted a proclamation of our first president who believed in Christianity not enlightenment.



That's nice, but those are words in a proclamation.   Where is the action in that proclamation?  Where are the laws based on that proclamation?   Washington was also a staunch Freemason.   His ACTIONS as President are just as much in line with that than they are any Christian faith.





> But you have the right to believe in enlightenment tenants if you want to.



Sure, I'll believe in Locke's influence, Montesque's influence, Franklin's influence, Thomas Paine's influence, and so on.



> That quote from the proclamation, where it is said true religion, comes from the bible where Christ says in John 14:6



And not everyone believes that...nor is it codified in our laws.




> Jesus said; I am the way,the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



And that is not codified in our laws either.




> You can never be forced to Christianity Bod



Thanks to our Founding Fathers who went 180 degrees from that old directions.



> Islam with some on the other hand is trying to force their religion.



And while this thread is not on islam...I hold any of their attempts with contempt.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nobody reads your posts in their entirety anymore, Bod. They quit doing that ages ago.



You keep telling yourself that Allie....as I already said, you spend a great deal of energy telling me that you don't pay attention to my posts.   You spend a great deal of energy trying to convince someone....you?....that everyone agrees with you.   (safety in numbers fantasy?)

See you next post or....xx... telling me that you don't read my posts.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

Sorry, I said it wrong.
Yes the thread is that we are not founded on Christianity.
But we are a Christian nation.
Freemason belief;
Freemasonry refers to the principles, institutions, and practices of the fraternal order of the Free and Accepted Masons. The largest worldwide society, Freemasonry is an organization of men based on the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man," using builders' tools as symbols to teach basic moral truths generally accepted by persons of good will. Their motto is "morality in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true." It is religious in that a belief in a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul are the two prime requirements for membership, but it is nonsectarian in that no religious test is used.1 The purpose of Freemasonry is to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people. 

But Freemason's does not interfere with Christianity and George Washington attended his church when he could during the war and presidency. He did so regularly after he was president.
Many Freemasons attend Church along with the meetings of Freemasons.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Sorry, I said it wrong.
> Yes the thread is that we are not founded on Christianity.
> But we are a Christian nation.
> Freemason belief;
> ...



Yes they do....but their tenets are not christian tenets either.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

But some of our laws and other Christain Nations laws are based on Christianity
such as Bigamy and polygamy

But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states.  When other people&#8217;s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme.  People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States.  This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.
Yes. we do have laws based on moral christian law.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> But some of our laws and other Christain Nations laws are based on Christianity
> *such as Bigamy and polygamy*
> 
> But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states.  When other people&#8217;s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme.  People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States.  This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.
> Yes. we do have laws based on moral christian law.



Would you say those are based on Christianity?   I ask because one does not have to be a Christian or a christian nation to make bigamy and polygamy illegal.

If you want to look to the CORE of Christian tenets, the 10 commandments and the belief in Jesus as Christ, where were those codified by our Founders as law?


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I said it wrong.
> ...



You don't think a supreme being and immortality are Christian?
It was required in order to become a member.
All of what was quoted above is Christian tenets.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > But some of our laws and other Christain Nations laws are based on Christianity
> ...




Where did a Nation have laws on bigamy and polygamy that wasn't christian?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You find them in almost all religions.  It is not patented by Christianity.



> It was required in order to become a member.



But not being Christian.



> All of what was quoted above is Christian tenets.


No...Christianity doesn't own those tenets.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Most of them....polygamy and bigamy are actually quite rare.   

But if you think that ONLY Christian nations have monogamy, I am willing to look to your evidence.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I didn't say they did.
All religions have some basics.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




No. Polygamy in tribes were very common before Christianity was introduced.
Just a few;
American Indians
All of the tribes in South America
And almost all of the tribes in the Pacific and Atlantic Islands.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> But some of our laws and other Christain Nations laws are based on Christianity
> such as Bigamy and polygamy
> 
> But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states.  When other peoples religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme.  People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States.  This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.
> Yes. we do have laws based on moral christian law.



What set of morals are you talking about?
My neighbors? Jerry Falwell? Jimmy Swaggart? Bishop Long? The morals of an atheist?
Our laws ARE SECULAR. Our entire government if SECULAR.
Been away for a few days and even spoke with a Baptist preacher about this thread.
He is a Southern Baptist preacher and knows this nation was not founded on any religous principles. The nation WAS/IS Christian, the nation's Founders were Christian primarily and Christianity is a good thing BUT:
The nation was founded on LAW that protects ALL religions and has NO religous principles whatsoever as religous principles VARY from individual to individual EVEN IN THE SAME CHURCH.
Religion is NEVER the strength of THE LAW . THE LAW  is and has always been the FOUNDATION of this country. 
Amazing how foolish you folks are that deny that the very foundation of this country, THE LAWS, are what PROTECTS ALL RELIGONS, not just Christianity in this country.
Without a FOUNDATION in LAW, how could a nation be founded on ANYTHING?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Dude, the Bible preaches polygamy as acceptable. 
The Bible is a CHRISTIAN book.
THE Christian book.
It was not practiced a lot in the Biblical era because only the wealthy could afford multiple wives.


----------



## peach174 (May 31, 2011)

Old 





Gadawg73 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Dude-
In the Old testament yes, but not the new testament.
The new testament teaches one man and one wife.
1 Timothy and Titus


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 31, 2011)

If this nation was founded on Christian principles then why was abortion LEGAL IN MOST ALL STATES at the time of the revolution?
And remained LEGAL from 1776-mid 1800s in MOST ALL STATES.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




And those without religion have basics too.


----------



## Metzor (May 31, 2011)

The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 31, 2011)

Metzor said:


> The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.



Name ONE LAW that mentions God Jesus.
And tell us why God or Jesus are not mentioned in any law in any state.
Do you know why?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Does found = law?

Nope. Hit that dictionary. Again. Retention isn't your strong suit, is it?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> If this nation was founded on Christian principles then why was abortion LEGAL IN MOST ALL STATES at the time of the revolution?
> And remained LEGAL from 1776-mid 1800s in MOST ALL STATES.



The country was founded on a principle that unalienable rights are granted by God, and that principle was derived from the Christian faith of the Founders. 

The Constitution as they understood it allowed people to believe whatever they wanted to believe about anything and the federal government wouldn't interfere with, reward, or punish people in any way for what they believed.  And it allowed the original U.S. citizens the right to practice their moral and religious convictions however they saw fit and form whatever society they wished to have.  Some early societies permitted abortion though it was generally considered socially unacceptable.  Some societies did not permit abortion.  The Federal government would not interfere with such local laws in any way.

The same freedom allows us to call out those who want to make the truth of it into something else altogether.  And the fact that unalienable rights come from the Founders' Christian faith and understanding isn't changed no matter how many non sequiturs and red herrings you come up with or how many straw men you try to build.

The concept of a federal government dictating morality and how people should be required to live their lives is a fairly new invention and one that would have been anathema to the Founders.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Metzor said:


> The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.



Every state in the Union?   Care to back that up, my friend?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Does found = law?
> 
> Nope. Hit that dictionary. Again. Retention isn't your strong suit, is it?



So....Allie.  You don't think we are a nation founded on law and the rule of law.   Interesting.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Does found = law?
> ...


 
Did I say that?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Let's see then....why the puzzlement over* Does found=law*?

It's a given that we are a Nation of Laws founded on the basis of The Law.   And the Law is secular giving no favor to Christianity or any religion.

You cannot deny that truth.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Does found = law?

I'm not puzzled, I know the answer.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2011)

The US government is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Not according to the FF.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.
> ...


Stop making so much sense, Gadawg.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 31, 2011)

Irrelevant.

But it's nice that the resident loons have resurrected past resident loon.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Not according to the FF.



Actions and LAW speak louder than speeches.   Unless you can find some speech or letter of a Founding Father that we now canonize as law.


I look forward to your reply....here....as in elsewhere.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2011)

The Founding Fathers are all dead.  You have to read their letters to understand their intent.  They sure as hell didn't intend for the US to be a Christian theocracy.


----------



## TheBrain (May 31, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Founding Fathers are all dead.  You have to read their letters to understand their intent.  They sure as hell didn't intend for the US to be a Christian theocracy.



two hundred and eight pages and not one fucking person has said that they did and you feel the need to come in and post that?

You're an ignorant fuck.


----------



## Metzor (May 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.
> ...


I would hope that none do, for obvious reasons. However, many states have created laws that parallel biblical teachings. Sodomy & Blue laws for example. 



bodecea said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > The constitutions of every state in the union mention God and a few mention Jesus.
> ...


Easily done, my friend. 

God in the State Constitutions - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2011)

Metzor said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Metzor said:
> ...




You were right and I was wrong on that one.....I thought maybe the early ones, but that was all 50....YOu got me there.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> The US government is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible.



This nation was founded on Christian principles. The nation was founded before the government was created.


1490-1492  Columbus commission was given to set out to find a new world.

According to Columbus personal log, his purpose in seeking undiscovered worlds was to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens. . It was the Lord who put into my mind  that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies  I am the most unworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely  No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Saviour, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His holy service. (Columbus Book of Prophecies)

April 10, 1606  The Charter for the Virginia Colony read in part:

To the glory of His divine Majesty, in propagating of the Christian religion to such people as yet live in ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.

November 3, 1620  King James I grants the Charter of the Plymouth council.

In the hope thereby to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty.

November 11, 1620  The Pilgrims sign the Mayflower Compact aboard the Mayflower, in Plymouth harbor.

For the glory of God and advancement of ye Christian faith  doe by these presents solemnly & mutually in ye presence of God and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick.

March 4, 1629  The first Charter of Massachusetts read in part:

For the directing, ruling, and disposeing of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderlie Conversacon, maie wynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth, which in our Royall Intencon, and The Adventurers free profession, is the principall Ende of the Plantacion..

January 14, 1638  The towns of Hartford, Weathersfield and Windsor adopt the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.

To mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the Gospell of our Lord Jesus, which we now professe

August 4, 1639  The governing body of New Hampshire is established.

Considering with ourselves the holy will of God and our own necessity, that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government among us, of which we are altogether destitute, do, in the name of Christ and in the sight of God, combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such government as shall be, to our best discerning, agreeable to the will of God

September 26, 1642  The rules and precepts that were to govern Harvard were set up.

Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, John 17:3 and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdome, Let every one seriously set himselfe by prayer in secret to seeke it of him Prov. 2.3.

The charter of Yale University clearly expressed the purpose for which the school was founded: Whereas several well disposed and Publick spirited Persons of their sincere Regard to & zeal for upholding & propagating of the Christian Protestant Religion  youth may be instructed in the Arts & Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church & Civil State.

In addition to Harvard and Yale, 106 out of the first 108 schools in America were founded on the Christian faith.

April 3, 1644  The New Haven Colony adopts their charter.

That the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses  be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction 

1647  Governor William Bradford publishes Of Plimouth Plantation.

Lastly, (and which was not least,) a great hope and inward zeall they (the Pilgrims) had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for ye propagation and advancing of ye gospell or ye kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of ye world; yea, though they should be but stepping-stones unto others for ye performing of so great a work  their desires were set on ye ways of God, and to employ his ordinances; but they rested on his providence, and know whom they had beleeved.

April 21, 1649  The Maryland Toleration Act is passed.

Be it therefor  enacted  that no person or persons whatsoever within this province  professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall  henceforth be any ways troubled, molested (or disapproved of)  in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof 

April 25, 1689  The Great Law of Pennsylvania is passed.

Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and the end of government  therefore government itself is a venerable ordinance of God 

May 20, 1775  North Carolina passes the Mecklenburg County Resolutions.

We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of a right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no other power than that of our God and the general government of Congress.

Summer 12, 1775  Continental Congress issues a call to all citizens to fast and pray and confess their sin that the Lord might bless the land.

And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and to abstain from servile labor and recreation on said day.

Summer 2-4, 1776  Declaration of Independence written and signed.

We hold these truths  that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights  appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world  And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

As the Declaration was being signed, Samuel Adams said: We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.

On the same day, Benjamin Franklin suggested that the national motto be: Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Historian and philosopher G.K. Chesterton said of the founding of America that it is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth in dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.

September 17, 1787  The Constitution of the United States is finished.

At least 50 out of the 55 men who framed the Constitution of the United States were professing Christians. (M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company, Plymouth Rock Foundation., 1982).

Eleven of the first 13 States required faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible as qualification for holding public office.

The Constitution of each of the 50 States acknowledges and calls upon the Providence of God for the blessings of freedom.

1787  James Madison, the architect of the federal Constitution and fourth president:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future .. upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.

April 30, 1789  Washington gives his First Inaugural Address.

My fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the council of nations, and Whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by Himself for these essential purposes.

March 11, 1792  President George Washington:

I am sure that never was a people who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency which so often manifested in the Revolution.

December 20, 1820  Daniel Webster, Plymouth Massachusetts:

Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers brought hither their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate  and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political and literary.

July 4, 1821  John Quincy Adams:

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration  they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.

1833  Noah Webster:

The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles  This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions and government  the moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.

1841  Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America):

In the United States of America the sovereign authority is religious  there is no other country in the world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.

Summer 8, 1845  President Andrew Jackson asserts:

The Bible is the rock upon which our Republic rests.

February 11, 1861  Abraham Lincoln, farewell at Springfield, Illinois:

Unless the great God who assisted (Washington) shall be with me and aid me, I must fail; but if the same Omniscient Mind and Mighty Arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me, I shall not fail  Let us all pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.

Lincoln on the Bible:

In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it, we would not know right from wrong. All things most desireable for mans welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. (George L. Hunt, Calvinism and the Political Order, Westminster Press, 1965, p.33)

1884  U.S. Supreme Court reiterates the Declarations reference to our rights as being God-given.

These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement that all men are endowed  not by edicts of emperors, or by decrees of parliament, or acts of Congress, but by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these  not grant them but secure them governments are instituted among men.

1891  The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a Christian Nation.

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian  this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation  we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth  this is a Christian nation. (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)

1909  President Theodore Roosevelt:

After a week on perplexing problems  it does so rest my soul to come into the house of The Lord and to sing and mean it, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty  (my) great joy and glory that in occupying an exalted position in the nation, I am enabled, to preach the practical moralities of the Bible to my fellow-countrymen and to hold up Christ as the hope and Savior of the world. (Ferdinand C. Iglehart, Theodore Roosevelt  The Man As I knew Him, A.L. Burt, 1919)

1913  President Woodrow Wilson:

America was born to exemplify the devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the Holy Scriptures.

1952  US Supreme Court defines the Separation of Church and State.

We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being  No Constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects  The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State.

January 20, 1977  President Jimmy Carter:

Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me just a few years ago, opened to the timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah: He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God (Micah 6:2).

1980  President Ronald Reagan:

The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the Healing of America  our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal.

May 3, 1990  President George Bush proclaims National Day of Prayer.

The great faith that led our Nations Founding Fathers to pursue this bold experience in self-government has sustained us in uncertain and perilous times; it has given us strength to this very day. Like them, we do very well to recall our firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, to give thanks for the freedom and prosperity this nation enjoys, and to pray for continued help and guidance from our wise and loving Creator.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Founding Fathers are all dead.  You have to read their letters to understand their intent.  They sure as hell didn't intend for the US to be a Christian theocracy.



No one has claimed they did.


Perhaps you should start at the first thread. Most of your argument has been addressed and soundly defeated.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Their letters state definitively that they founded the country upon Christian principle, anyway.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Their letters state definitively that they founded the country upon Christian principle, anyway.



Ah...letters....how about their Actions and the Laws they created.   You know, the stuff that really matters......how do their Actions and their Laws indicate Christian Principles?


I could write letters all day long saying all sorts of things....I could claim I am a Christian and my postings here have the intent of carrying on Christian Principles.   That wouldn't necessarily make it so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2011)

Metzor said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Metzor said:
> ...



What Blue laws were in the Constitution?
Funny you mention that. Washington was caught going from state to state by coach and almost imprisoned for doing that on a Sunday.
And you claim the Founders supported that?
Those incidents, that was one of many, were exactly why the Founders DID NOT mention God in any way or in any law.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various and differing religous beliefs.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The US government is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible.
> ...



Don't see any princinples of any kind in any of that Lonestar. Sorry.
Christian principles are not "I believe in God". "God gives us strength". All political rhetoric. 
Sorry, the subject is nation not founded on Christian principles Lonestar.
Your cut and paste job suggests Bush and Reagan were Founders.
Try something a little more original next time. You know, something YOU came up with, not a cut and paste.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Terminally stupid.


----------



## del (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Terminally stupid.



don't be so hard on yourself


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Hey stupid, I simply showed a history of how God has been the cornerstone of this nation. If you are too stupid to know what "Christian principles" are, then I can't help you.


Fact is you stupid puke, this nation was founded on Christian principles by men of faith. If you wish to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves it then go ahead and stay ignorant your entire miserable life.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2011)

What amazes me about you LoneStar is your excellent on point posts in support of 2nd Amendment and gun rights and fiscal issues that I agree with you on point 100% that are supported by you with the LAW AND CONSTITUTION which you cite, yet in this argument you make claims without any LAW OR CONSTITUTION to back any of it up. You ain't stupid. However, you have no specific principles to cite in this argument and never make them.
Oh well, at least we agree on something.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Are you displaying the aforementioned Christian tenets in your posts?    

"By their fruits, you will know them"....or something like that?


----------



## confussed (Jun 1, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> James Madison;
> "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"
> -letter to Thomas Jefferson
> 
> ...



The first settleres were Puritans, that's why they can here to freely practice religion, or at least until it went crazy with burning witches, and making people ashamed in the eyes of God. Moral and ethical behavour, you know those days before the hippies. After the hippies everything came out into the open, Even today seqular practice is being used as a religion of hate against christanity. The Christian Coalition, the base of the Republican party. Decide for yourself, and remember you always have freedom of choice.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

confussed said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > James Madison;
> ...


Actually, the businessmen came to Jamestown first and then the Pilgrims and then the Puritans.   The Puritans, while wanting religious freedom for themselves, would NOT allow it for any others.   They exiles, imprisoned or killed anyone who disagreed with their theocratic line.   Read up on Quakers, Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams.





> Moral and ethical behavour, you know those days before the hippies. After the hippies everything came out into the open, Even today seqular practice is being used as a religion of hate against christanity. The Christian Coalition, the base of the Republican party. Decide for yourself, and remember you always have freedom of choice.




Hippies?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> What amazes me about you LoneStar is your excellent on point posts in support of 2nd Amendment and gun rights and fiscal issues that I agree with you on point 100% that are supported by you with the LAW AND CONSTITUTION which you cite, yet in this argument you make claims without any LAW OR CONSTITUTION to back any of it up. You ain't stupid. However, you have no specific principles to cite in this argument and never make them.
> Oh well, at least we agree on something.



That's because this nation wasn't founded on laws or the Constitution. The Constitution came AFTER this country was founded. The evidence is in the words of the founding fathers, particularly the DOI. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need I go on?  Fact is, this isn't a theocracy and no one has suggested it was or should be but the underlining principles upon which this nation was founded is undeniably Christian as Jefferson demonstrated in the DOI. 

Now you can choose to ignore the words of the founding fathers but that would only make you a fool.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Shows how little you know.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Actions speak louder than words, you know.   I see actions by people on these boards...and I see their words.....I draw conclusions about them based on how they BEHAVE towards others....not by what they SAY they believe.

That is the prudent thing to do.....and applies also on what our FOUNDERS DID as opposed to what they SAID.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And your actions proves you're an idiot.

That actions taken by our founding fathers resulted in a free nation with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

Without their actions you would be bowing to the Queen of England.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What amazes me about you LoneStar is your excellent on point posts in support of 2nd Amendment and gun rights and fiscal issues that I agree with you on point 100% that are supported by you with the LAW AND CONSTITUTION which you cite, yet in this argument you make claims without any LAW OR CONSTITUTION to back any of it up. You ain't stupid. However, you have no specific principles to cite in this argument and never make them.
> ...



And the DOI is not based on Christian tenets, but on Enlightenment tenets.  Thank you for bringing that up.



> Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution.



And isn't it fascinating that in the FINAL PRODUCT, god was left out.   



> For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"



And isn't it interesting how our Founders made a conscious effort to leave the god part out of their federal constitution.  A conscious effort.



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



And they made a conscious effort to leave all that behind in the creation of the Constitution.  That is one of the things that make them great in my eyes....they knew better than to carry that over into the creation of our Country's structure.   I'm afraid that today's orthodox and evangelical christians would not be so wise if given the chance.   



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



Ben Franklin was a deist at best, an atheist most likely....but most definitely a follower of the Enlightenment.



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



John Adams STATED....true....however I look to his ACTIONS, signing the Treaty of Tripoli which was approved unanimously by his Senate and includes the statement that the United States is not a christian nation.   That is codified as law....Adams' statements you mentioned are NOT codified as law.  Actions speak louder than words.



> John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:
> 
> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."



People say many, many things....how did John Jay codify christianity into our laws/Supreme Court decisions?



> Need I go on?  Fact is, this isn't a theocracy and no one has suggested it was or should be but the underlining principles upon which this nation was founded is undeniably Christian as Jefferson demonstrated in the DOI.



Except for a few who stepped into this thread without reading thru, no one has said this is a theocracy...not you, not me....but as the OP says, neither is the U.S. based on Christian tenets.



> Now you can choose to ignore the words of the founding fathers but that would only make you a fool.



I would be a fool if I took words over Actions the founders took.  I would be a fool if I took words over the Constitution they actually wrote and signed.   I would be a fool if I took words over the Laws and Supreme Courts decisions they made.

Actions speak louder than words.....yes or no?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You can call it whatever you want. Fact is this nation was founded on Christian principles. 

How many times are you going to lose the same argument?

I'll see you the treaty of tripoli and raise you the treaty of paris. 

Fact is article 11 does not exist in the original treaty and as I've already shown translations can be incorrect. 

Because this isn't a theocracy the Constitution had to be secular. Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?

Face it, you lost this argument on day one. No amount of you rehashing the same old argument is going to change the facts.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Your christian tenets in action again?



> That actions taken by our founding fathers resulted in a free nation with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



Exactly.  Enlightenment tenets....NOT Christian tenets.   We were unique, we were the FIRST to run away from those Christian based tenets of Europe.



> Without their actions you would be bowing to the Queen of England.



Now THAT would be Christian based Tenets....since she is Head of the Church of England.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Treaty of Paris....pre-Constitution.  Treaty of Tripoli...post-Constitution.



> Fact is article 11 does not exist in the original treaty and as I've already shown translations can be incorrect.



I've heard that urban legend that has been started by a person with a similar goal as yours...to prove that we are a Christian nation.   It's interesting that our copy in the National Archives contain that section.   But....in a way...it is telling how someone would go to SO MUCH TROUBLE to try to debunk that treaty.   It's pretty damning evidence.



> Because this isn't a theocracy the Constitution had to be secular.



The Constitution is secular because our Founders wanted a secular nation based on the secular concepts laid out by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke.



> Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?



Ah, more of your Christian tenets in action.



> Face it, you lost this argument on day one. No amount of you rehashing the same old argument is going to change the facts.



You try very hard....but one thing stands quite clear...Actions speak louder than words.   All you bring to the argument are words and your christian tenet insults.  

I and others bring the Founders' actions, their laws, their supreme court judgements and their Constitution.

Actions trump words every time.


Now...feel free to insult some more.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Show me where in the Ten Commandments it states" thou shall not call an idiot an idiot" and you may have a point.

Semantics. I call them Christian tenets for the simple reason that our forefathers were for the most part Christian and cited the Bible more than any other document in their respective writings and speeches. 

Christians believe that Jesus is the head of the church so your last statement is utter bullshit. 

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a title held by the British monarchs which signifies their titular leadership over the Church of England.[1]* Even though the monarch's authority over the Church of England is not strong, the position is still very relevant to the church and is mostly observed in a symbolic capacity*. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church on the advice of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is in turn advised by church leaders.[1]


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Oh. My. God.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Bod, you should try reading some real history at some point. I would love it if you would occasionally reference the tomes from which you have gleaned all the specatucular knowledge you have, lol. 

Of course you don't. Because you probably know that most people don't consider MAD magazine a historical text.

"
The late scholar M. E. Bradford spent much of his academic career examining all of the private and public writings of the Founding Fathers.  According to Bradford in _A Worthy Company_, all but about five of the 55 Framers of the U.S. Constitution were orthodox Christians.  These men had no intention of abolishing the Anglo-Christian culture which they had inherited, says Bradford.  In _Original Intentions_, Bradford notes, &#8220;The concept of the Framers as ordinary Christians, as members in good standing of the various Christian communions found in early America, is supported by the recorded pattern of their lives. . . . The assumption that this majority was likely to agree to totally secular institutional arrangements in the very structure of American politics contradicts almost everything we know about human nature, as well as the most self-evident components of Christian teaching concerning the relation of the magistrate to the ultimate source of his authority in God (_Original Intentions_, 88-89).&#8221;
&#8220;*Of course,&#8221; adds Bradford, &#8220;the most unmistakable evidence of orthodoxy comes in references made by the Framers to Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Son of God.  These are commonplace in their private papers, correspondence and public remarks &#8212; and in the early records of their lives&#8230;.Such declarations are so frequent in the papers of the Framers as to belie the now familiar theory that our Republic came into being in a moment of absolute tolerance, of religious neutrality qua indifference or deistic rationalism&#8230;.*And not all of this evidence is relegated to wills or very private documents (_Original Intentions_, 89-90).&#8221;  Many of the Framers speak explicitly &#8220;of the promise of the Cross,&#8221; Bradford states (_Original Intentions_, 90).  &#8220;The variety of surviving Christian witness in the papers and sayings of the Framers is indeed astonishing,&#8221; Bradford concludes (_Original Intentions_, 91).
*DeMar and Bradford&#8217;s research is confirmed by other fine scholars.*
*M. Stanton Evans in *_*The Theme Is Freedom*:  Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition_ proves, by citing many historical sources, that America&#8217;s political traditions and governmental institutions are rooted in the Bible and in medieval and Protestant Christianity.  Among the traditions and institutions he cites are the right to own property, the right to buy and sell freely, the notion that the powers of all rulers and all government institutions should be limited, the idea of representative government, and traditions of economic and scientific progress.  &#8220;All of these conceptions,&#8221; Evans says, &#8220;come to us from the religion of the Bible (Evans, 307).&#8221;
*The Christian era of the Middle Ages in Europe &#8220;nourished the institutions of free government,&#8221; Evans shows (150).  Biblical ideas about kingship and the separate but overlapping duties of Church and State led to the medieval idea of constitutionalism, which established limits &#8220;on the power of kings, and on the scope of government in general (Evans, 151).*&#8221;  The rejection of this medieval doctrine by the leaders of the Renaissance and the French Enlightenment put Western liberties in jeopardy.  The Protestants in Colonial America, however, kept this idea alive.  They were influenced by Calvinist notions of covenantal government, a network of social, political, moral, and theological contracts between God and Man, and between people and their government.  In their view, kings, presidents, legislators, and judges derive their sovereignty first from God and then from the people under them.  Evans shows how this view led first to the Declaration of Independence then to the United States Constitution, and finally to the Bill of Rights.  *In other words, our whole system of government was founded by the religious right of the 18th century, not by deists, not by French intellectuals, and certainly not by pagans or atheists.  Christian faith and American freedom must go together, Evans concludes*. "

Christian Heritage | The Culture Watch


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

"
&#8220;Although Deism in America would seem to be at floodtide during the American Revolution,&#8221; writes Kirk, &#8220;actually a revived Christian orthodoxy already was vigorous then &#8212; and would be stronger still by the time of the Constitutional Convention. The American people came to expect their public men to be Christians, or at least give lip-service to Christianity (Kirk, 342).&#8221;
Six other scholars support Kirk&#8217;s statements on American deism. Ernest Campbell Mossner in the _Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ says, &#8220;Before the Revolution, deism made relatively little progress (Mossner, 333).&#8221; Rousas J. Rushdoony writes, &#8220;Actually, Deism was a late arrival in America, and very slight in extent and influence prior to the American Revolution (Rushdoony, 2).&#8221; Historians Forrest McDonald and Ellen Shapiro McDonald point out that not only did the French Enlightenment have no impact on America but also the Founding Fathers &#8220;cited the Bible more than any other source (_Requiem_, 6).&#8221; Most Americans &#8220;shared a Protestant Christian world view (_Requiem_, 12),&#8221; add the McDonalds. "

"
Finally, in 1989, the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company published _God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government_. Both Gary DeMar and John Eidsmoe, in two separate chapters, present evidence which denies the charge that the Founding Fathers were mostly deist (see pages 200-212 and 221-230)."

"For instance, at one point in _Common Sense_, after Paine urges the framing of a Continental Charter among the Thirteen Colonies, he writes, &#8220;Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God (Paine, 98).&#8221; 

Christian Heritage | The Culture Watch


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

"
&#8220;Although Deism in America would seem to be at floodtide during the American Revolution,&#8221; writes Kirk, &#8220;actually a revived Christian orthodoxy already was vigorous then &#8212; and would be stronger still by the time of the Constitutional Convention. The American people came to expect their public men to be Christians, or at least give lip-service to Christianity (Kirk, 342).&#8221;
Six other scholars support Kirk&#8217;s statements on American deism. Ernest Campbell Mossner in the _Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ says, &#8220;Before the Revolution, deism made relatively little progress (Mossner, 333).&#8221; Rousas J. Rushdoony writes, &#8220;Actually, Deism was a late arrival in America, and very slight in extent and influence prior to the American Revolution (Rushdoony, 2).&#8221; Historians Forrest McDonald and Ellen Shapiro McDonald point out that not only did the French Enlightenment have no impact on America but also the Founding Fathers &#8220;cited the Bible more than any other source (_Requiem_, 6).&#8221; Most Americans &#8220;shared a Protestant Christian world view (_Requiem_, 12),&#8221; add the McDonalds. "

"
Finally, in 1989, the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company published _God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government_. Both Gary DeMar and John Eidsmoe, in two separate chapters, present evidence which denies the charge that the Founding Fathers were mostly deist (see pages 200-212 and 221-230)."

"For instance, at one point in _Common Sense_, after Paine urges the framing of a Continental Charter among the Thirteen Colonies, he writes, &#8220;Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God (Paine, 98).&#8221; 

Christian Heritage | The Culture Watch


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Bod, you should try reading some real history at some point. I would love it if you would occasionally reference the tomes from which you have gleaned all the specatucular knowledge you have, lol.
> 
> Of course you don't. Because you probably know that most people don't consider MAD magazine a historical text.
> 
> ...



What a tremendous spinning of actual history by a person trying to shoe horn Christianity into our Secular Founding....

I actually giggled a little at your post.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "
> Although Deism in America would seem to be at floodtide during the American Revolution, writes Kirk, actually a revived Christian orthodoxy already was vigorous then  and would be stronger still by the time of the Constitutional Convention. The American people came to expect their public men to be Christians, or at least give lip-service to Christianity (Kirk, 342).
> Six other scholars support Kirks statements on American deism. Ernest Campbell Mossner in the _Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ says, Before the Revolution, deism made relatively little progress (Mossner, 333). Rousas J. Rushdoony writes, Actually, Deism was a late arrival in America, and very slight in extent and influence prior to the American Revolution (Rushdoony, 2). Historians Forrest McDonald and Ellen Shapiro McDonald point out that not only did the French Enlightenment have no impact on America but also the Founding Fathers cited the Bible more than any other source (_Requiem_, 6). Most Americans shared a Protestant Christian world view (_Requiem_, 12), add the McDonalds. "
> 
> ...



This is as funny as Conservatives trying to take credit for the founding of our country when the Liberals were our Founders and the Conservatives were the Tories.

I giggled some more.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

After discussing the legality and morality of the American Revolution, Rushdoony declares, &#8220;Basic to all colonial thought was the ancient and Christian sense of the transcendence and majesty of law.  According to John Calvin, &#8216;the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a speaking law.&#8217;  In terms of the authority of this silent magistrate, the rebelling colonials moved, and in terms of this faith, their magistrates became speaking laws.  Constitutionalism, for the colonials, meant, as Baldwin has demonstrated with reference to the New England clergy, the absolute and sovereign God and His law undergirding the silent magistrate and the speaking law (Rushdoony, 32).&#8221;
Rushdoony adds that the colonials were inspired by the Christian notion that government power and sovereignty should be limited.  &#8220;This meant, first, a division of powers, which naturally implied, second, a multiplicity of powers, and, third, a complexity of powers (Rushdoony, 33).&#8221;  Their esteem for complexity &#8220;had more than Calvinistic roots,&#8221; Rushdoony asserts.  &#8220;It was deeply imbedded in the Augustinian and feudal inheritance of the Colonists (Rushdoony, 34).&#8221;  Rushdoony concludes:  &#8220;The colonial denial of [absolute governmental] sovereignty was an aspect of the Christian faith of the day (Rushdoony, 40).&#8221; 

"The United States Constitution actually says &#8220;in the year of our Lord,&#8221; a direct reference to Jesus Christ as God.  This phrase was not a &#8220;mere convention&#8221; as some people claim; it was an expression of honor to the one true God.  We can know this to be true because we know that many atheists today hate to make any such reference to Christianity.  If references to Christianity in 1787 were mere convention, then lack of reference to Christianity today would also have to be mere convention. "

"The Constitution also requires elected officials to take an oath of office.  According to Bradford in _Original Intentions_, at the time the Constitution was written, to take an oath of office was to swear publicly by Almighty God.  That is one reason the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution felt it unnecessary to require elected officials to also take a religious test in order to run for office.  Why take a religious test when you have already sworn by God to uphold a document that expresses an explicit belief in the Christian Trinity? "

"
David Barton shows in _Original Intent:  The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion_ that the idea of having no religious test meant only that the federal government could not force political candidates to become members of one Protestant denomination.  Thus, when the Constitution forbids making a religious test, it did not mean that candidates must be non-Christians.  It meant they could be Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, or a member of any other orthodox Christian denomination.
The United States Constitution and the American political system were based on Christian principles.  Included in those Christian principles are the following theological and moral imperatives:

Government power and sovereignty should be limited to the specific theological and moral commands of the Christian God.
There should be a balance and separation of powers within the government so that a small group of evil people will be unable to tyrannize others.
All citizens should have the right to own property and to buy and sell freely, according to the moral law of the Christian God.
The right to life and property cannot be abridged without due process.
The ultimate source of all authority lies with the God of the Bible.
The American Government was designed to be a sacred covenant between the people, the state, and God.  If the state breaks this covenant, then the people have the right, and the duty, to oppose the state but to use violence only as a last resort.
As the Constitution clearly states, Jesus Christ is our Lord because He is the second member of the &#8220;most Holy and undivided Trinity.&#8221;
Although the Constitution affirms a belief in the deity of Christ and in the Holy Trinity, neither the church nor the state is allowed to physically force people to believe these biblical teachings.  The state should, however, do everything it can to facilitate the spread of the Christian Gospel and to place moral limits on the behavior of people.
As the last constitutional, and biblical, principle shows, a truly Christian government should not really frighten atheists or non-Christians because a truly Christian government would recognize that people must have freedom to reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  A truly Christian nation would thus actually demand a high degree of religious freedom for everyone.  A non-Christian government, however, as the current situation in our public schools demonstrates, violates this law of God.  Our public schools may pretend to be neutral when it comes to Christianity, the Bible and politics, but such pretensions do not match reality."

Christian Heritage | The Culture Watch


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Bod, you should try reading some real history at some point. I would love it if you would occasionally reference the tomes from which you have gleaned all the specatucular knowledge you have, lol.
> ...


 
That's because you're an idiot, and haven't a clue about history.

Why is it you  never quote actual historical sources, Bod? YOu claim to have such an extensive education in history. 

Anyone who actually had any education would reference sources, nitwit. You NEVER do. You just say you've read a lot.

What a goober.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > "
> ...


 
The definition of pearls before swine.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

*Here's the bib from that piece.*
It figures you would giggle. This is true scholarship.

*BIBLIOGRAPHY*
Ahlstrom, Sydney.  _A Religious History of the American People_.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.
Bailyn, Bernard.  _The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution_.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Barton, David.  _The Myth of Separation_.  Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1992.
&#8212;&#8211;.  _Original Intent:  The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion_.  Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder Press, 1996.
Boller, Paul F., Jr.  _George Washington & Religion_.  Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963.
Bradford, M.E.  _A Worthy Company:  Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution_.  Marlborough, New Hampshire: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982.
&#8212;&#8211;.  _Original Intentions:  On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution_.  Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1993.
Cairns, Earle E.  _Christianity Through the Centuries:  A History of the Christian Church_.  2nd revised edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1981.
Cousins, Norman, editor.  _In God We Trust:  The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers_. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.
Dawson, Christopher.  _Religion and the Rise of Western Culture_.  New York: Doubleday, 1991.
de Tocqueville, Alexis.  _Democracy in America_.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988 edition.
De Mar, Gary.  _America&#8217;s Christian History:  The Untold Story_.  Atlanta: American Vision, 1993.
&#8212;&#8211;.  &#8220;Theocracy: The Rule of God Not the Rule of the Church.&#8221;  Biblical Worldview. Sept. 1994, 11-12.
Evans, M. Stanton.  _The Theme Is Freedom:  Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition_.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1994.
Federer, William J.  _America&#8217;s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations_.  St. Louis, Missouri:  Amerisearch, 2000.
Gaustad, Edwin S.  _Neither King Nor Prelate:  Religion and the New Nation 1776-1826_.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993.
Hofstedter, Richard.  _The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It_.  New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
Ketchum, Ralph, ed.  _The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates_.  New York: Penguin Books, 1986.
Kirk, Russell.  _The Roots of American Order_.  3d edition.  Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott.  _A History of Christianity_.  Revised edition.  New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
Lull, Timothy F., editor.  _Martin Luther&#8217;s Basic Theological Writings_.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
McDonald, Forrest.  _Novus Ordo Seclorum:  The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution_.  Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1985.
McDonald, Forrest, and Ellen Shapiro McDonald.  _Requiem:  Variations on Eighteenth-Century Themes_.  Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1988.
McNeill, John T., editor.  _Calvin:  Institutes of the Christian Religion_.  Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
&#8212;&#8211;.  _The History and Character of Calvinism_.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Mossner, Ernest Campbell.  &#8220;Deism.&#8221;  Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
Padover, Saul K.  _The World of the Founding Fathers_.  New York: A.S. Barnes, 1960.
Paine, Thomas.  _Common Sense_.  London: Penguin Books, 1986 edition.
Rossiter, Clinton, ed.  _The Federalist Papers_.  New York: Penguin Books, 1961.
Rushdoony, Rousas J.  _This Independent Republic:  Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History_.  Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1978.
Schmidt, Alvin J.  _The Menace of Multiculturalism:  Trojan Horse in America_.  Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1997.
Smith, Gary Scott, editor.  _God and Politics:  Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government_.  Phillipsburg, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1989.
Wilson, Jerome D., and William F. Ricketson.  _Thomas Paine_.  Updated edition.  Boston: G. K. Hall, 1989.
Wood, Gordon S.  _The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787_.  Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.


----------



## Metzor (Jun 1, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Metzor said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Are you really this dumb? The founders supported each state being a sovereign entity with it's own constitution.As long as the laws the states create don't violate the federal constitution, they can do whatever they want. Laws don't need to mention God in order to reflect God's will or the will of the people. "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't mention God either.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> The Founding Fathers are all dead.  You have to read their letters to understand their intent.  They sure as hell didn't intend for the US to be a Christian theocracy.



Nice straw man.

Did you take a class in erecting them?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Metzor said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Metzor said:
> ...


 
Yes, she really is that dumb.

this thread is a testament to it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Why is it you  never quote actual historical sources, Bod? YOu claim to have such an extensive education in history.



I suspect that bod goes to Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann for all the history she needs.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Have you ever seen a reference to any of these history books she claims to be so familiar with?

I never have.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Bod's #1 *history* book:


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I have linked the Treaty of Tripoli a few times....are you so bereft of knowledge that you need me to link the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of RIghts too?   I will be glad to do so if you need me to, and I apologize for assuming you already knew their content.



> YOu claim to have such an extensive education in history.



Certainly to the point of understanding that the Actions of our Founders count for more in the scheme of REAL history than Words alone do.   That's a basic tenet of Reality.



> Anyone who actually had any education would reference sources, nitwit. You NEVER do. You just say you've read a lot.



You don't have to ask again, allow me to link all the sources needed.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Includes all 29 Amendments

The Declaration of Independence

the Treaty of Tripoli

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you cannot read these documents for yourself and note the utter lack of Christian connection....some other sources.

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

and 

The enigma of America's secular roots | Sam Haselby | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk  (Interesting take on the American who wrote the draft of the Treaty of Tripoli)

Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and Supreme Court decisions:

Secular Humanism in U. S. Supreme Court Cases

and interesting book:

Northern Illinois University Press

Founding principles:

Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute

A little cross section for you to start with....I recommend the first three.





> What a goober.




Ah...your Christian principles in action, I see.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

This is interesting...Bod refuses to comment on the Declaration or acknowledge it's status as a founding document....

Yet her own link, Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute

is a link to the Declaration....

The Northern University Press is an organization that advertises for authors....


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

And she's proven time and again she's clueless about the docs that she quotes, their meanings or the history surrounding them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

From your link to the scholarly (guffaw) wiki article:

"The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. "

Sheesh even when it's spelled out for you you just don't know what constitutes research, do you?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> This is interesting...Bod refuses to comment on the Declaration or acknowledge it's status as a founding document....
> 
> Yet her own link, Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute
> 
> ...



She linked them; you didn't expect her to actually READ them as well, did you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

From her founding.com link:

"The Declaration of Independence is one of our nation's most important founding documents, expressing the basic purposes of self-government, limited constitutionalism, and what it means to be an American.  Below one can read the original text, as well as consult three annotated versions explaining the Declaration's basic principles, its historical context, and a glossary of terms. "

"*WE*, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

More from that site:

"
Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short, from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God, -- that consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest or happiness, -- and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty, peace, and good-will to man! "

That's 
*A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (On man's standing in the order of creation) *

Thanks, Bod. That's a good source of stuff that supports my argument.

http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2138/default.asp


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> From her founding.com link:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is one of our nation's most important founding documents, expressing the basic purposes of self-government, limited constitutionalism, and what it means to be an American.  Below one can read the original text, as well as consult three annotated versions explaining the Declaration's basic principles, its historical context, and a glossary of terms. "
> 
> "*WE*, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"



Yep....not the word Jesus....not the word God......


IF they were using Christian tenets, why the need to talk in code.


I always appreciate it when you make my point for me....even better when you don't mean to, but do it anyways.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

They didn't talk in code. It's a shame you don't read your own material.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > This is interesting...Bod refuses to comment on the Declaration or acknowledge it's status as a founding document....
> ...



Every word, on many an occasion....something that it is evident you guys don't bother with.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> They didn't talk in code. It's a shame you don't read your own material.



Then, show us the standard every Sunday Christian reference posed the same way......


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

That's been addressed already. I can't help it if you don't understand English. Take a remedial class.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *That's been addressed already.* I can't help it if you don't understand English. Take a remedial class.



Ah, been a while since I've seen that excuse from you.


This is when I ask for a link.....then you say find it myself....when we both know you never addressed any such thing before.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Yes, this is where you say "Please enable my habit of continually asking the same questions and ignoring the answers over and over again..."


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 1, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What amazes me about you LoneStar is your excellent on point posts in support of 2nd Amendment and gun rights and fiscal issues that I agree with you on point 100% that are supported by you with the LAW AND CONSTITUTION which you cite, yet in this argument you make claims without any LAW OR CONSTITUTION to back any of it up. You ain't stupid. However, you have no specific principles to cite in this argument and never make them.
> ...



"You ain't stupid"
I was very wrong on that one. Sorry about that. 
Your claim that this nation was founded BEFORE the Constitution and THE LAW shows you to be the fool you are.
So if the English would have won then this nation still would have been founded on Christianity.
Because after all, like you say, we were founded before the Constitution and the Law.
OK.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

We were founded UPON Christian principle.

We were not founded solely the Constitution. We started laying the foundation long before the Constitution existed.

Again, you don't understand the terminology.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> We were founded UPON Christian principle.
> 
> We were not founded solely the Constitution. We started laying the foundation long before the Constitution existed.
> 
> Again, you don't understand the terminology.



Unfortunately for you, we were not founded upon Christian principle....or even more than one.  

We were the first country in the world to go 180 degrees away from basing our country on religious tenets.   

And our Founders were very, very wise to do that.  Wiser than many of those who benefit from their wisdom....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Unfortunately for you, we were not founded upon Christian principle....or even more than one.



How would you know?

You think the Whigs fought the Tories, for fucks sake.....

You are utterly and completely clueless, lacking so much as even a second grade education.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

And the Quakers were heinously persecuted during the history of the US.

Lol...

And someone (Gadawg?) thinks the Tories (only he misspells it) were some sort of religious cult.

History buffs, obviously!


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > We were founded UPON Christian principle.
> ...



Actually I've never seen anything that separated religious tenets from the establishment of our country.  Well not until the Warren Court rewrote the constitution.  Our founders seemed more intent on protecting religious freedoms from government limits than anything. They truly were interested in protecting religious freedom and that is exactly what their words represent.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately for you, we were not founded upon Christian principle....or even more than one.
> ...



The Patriots WERE Whigs, colonial Whigs....and the Tories were the Loyalists.  

I'm surprised you didn't know that.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



How did they do that?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> And the Quakers were heinously persecuted during the history of the US.



Uh, no.   Now I understand your confusion when you misunderstand simple things such as the FACT that Quakers were heiniously persecuted by European (christian tenet based) countries and by the Colonial Puritans (christian tenet based).....NOT during the history of the U.S. which started in the 1770s.



> Lol...



Indeed.



> And someone (Gadawg?) thinks the Tories (only he misspells it) were some sort of religious cult.



Well, if he said that (and of course to ask you proof would be pointless), he would be wrong.  They were a political party...a conservative loyalist party....the term translated into all those who supported remaining with England.



> History buffs, obviously!



Better than saying that the United States was based on Christian tenets without even  being able to list any of those christian tenets.   That's always a knee-slapper.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Of course it was. Since they were listed repeatedly.

Today in fact.

Your ignorance continues to shine.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Never mind that she admitted this on page 165


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> The Patriots WERE Whigs, colonial Whigs....and the Tories were the Loyalists.



No...

A scattered FEW early colonialists were Whigs, some were Tories - the came over from England. These were ENGLISH political parties. The colonial congress had no such parties. Not only were men such as Washington NOT Whigs, they berated the very notion of parties.

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."  - President George Washington


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Don't befuddle her with facts!


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 1, 2011)

> The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity



Your correct...It was founded on Judeo Christian values...

Let's just take Moses.

If you go to the Supeme Court Building you will find Moses and the Ten Commandments carved into the stucture







Why is there a quote from Moses on the Liberty Bell?

"Proclaim Liberty Thro' All The Land To All The Inhabitants Thereof" Leviticus 25:10






Why was the original Seal of the United States, Moses crossing the Red Sea? It was designed by a committee lead by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin






Moses can also be found in the House Chamber where the President gives his address





Auctual photo from inside the House Chamber

These are just a few examples. There are 100s if not 1000s.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> > The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually the Moses on the supreme court building is only one of several lawgivers, some....gasp...pagan....and the #'s I-X refer to the Bill of Rights.


And if you want to go into art...some of my favorites are a) the painting in the rotunda of the Capital building of Washington AS a god and the Romaneque statue of him in the Smithsonian.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And the Quakers were heinously persecuted during the history of the US.
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Don't befuddle her with facts!




Facts:

1.  When asked way back when to provide some of the Christian Tenets our country was founded on, you have come up empty.

2.  Neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights refer to a CHRISTIAN God or to Christ.

3.  The Treaty of Tripoli EXPRESSLY AND CLEARLY says we were NOT founded as a Christian nation and that treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by Pres. John Adams.

4.   While there have been many speeches, letters, proclamations, comments provided on Founders talking about this nation being founded on Christian tenets....not ONE law, not ONE Supreme Court decision, not ONE Amendment does such a thing.

5.  Actions speak louder than words.



Now...it's time for you to show me some of  Your Christian Principles again.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

You're just a nutcase, Bod.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

BTW, each point of your last post is a lie.

Except for the weird "actions speak louder than words" thing. I'm not sure what that is, other than evidence of your idiocy.


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> > > The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
> ...



Well that certainly explains everything I have lists...Dumbass

Deny the truth all you want the evidence is overwhelming.

Thomas Jefferson auctually attended Church services every Sunday. The Church service was held on the Senate Floor. So much for your definition of "Seperation of Church and State"

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

B-b-but....just because they SAID they were founding it upon Christian principle doesn't mean they really WERE...

What a nimrod she is.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> B-b-but....just because they SAID they were founding it upon Christian principle doesn't mean they really WERE...
> 
> What a nimrod she is.




Actions speak louder than words, my dear.

Why...for example.   Just you saying you are a Christian doesn't mean you ARE.

Actions speak louder than words.....(it's not just a quaint idiom, you know)


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

It is when you say it.

Over and over and over.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > American Cowboy said:
> ...



I'm delighted that Jefferson went to church.  No one said that most of the Founders weren't Christian....just that this Country was not founded on Christian principles.

Just like your comment isn't based on Christian principles either.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Bod, I found a useful site for you:

http://www.urbandebate.org/pdf/Learningtodebate.pdf


----------



## American Cowboy (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sure it is. I forgive your stupidity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

I provided a link to an informative and helpful pdf file on debate.

Sadly, this is the one that Bod uses. 

This caught my eye:

"Cussing - Derogatory terms are very important and often decide the outcome of the debate.

Example: "Shut the fuck up, shitface."
Note: Make sure to use proper word placement: "Hey homo, I fucked your mother." is a very strong and stable argument. "Hey Mother, I fucked a homo." is not. "
How to Argue and Debate Properly.

I also liked this:
Affirmative argument
- The offensive position against an opponent.
1. _argumentum ad hominem_ - Bring the opponent down. Use physical blemishes, odors, speech impediments, matriarchal figure, and any weakness you can disclose about them.
Example: "You only believe in pro-choice because you get pregnant every weekend, slutbag."​ ​


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > American Cowboy said:
> ...



What an absolutely PERFECT example of what takes the place of Christianity these days.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Logical fallacy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Actions speak louder than words, my dear.



And your actions show you to be a nut case....

I'm just sayin.....


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Actions speak louder than words, my dear.
> ...



Yep...you're just saying....my point exactly.  No actions, no proof...just sayin'


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 1, 2011)

Sigh.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 1, 2011)

There's a bittersweet aspect to this entire topic.

On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.

The BITTER part, that so many here try to deny the beauty of what our Founders did and make them just like any other founders of countries, tied down by the religious superstitions of historical times.


I applaud our Founders for the wonderful thing they did DESPITE the christian baggage of over 1500 years.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

American Cowboy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > American Cowboy said:
> ...



You left out the fact that Jefferson ONLY attended church services WHEN he was President, not "every Sunday" as you claim.
And the only reason they were held in the House was because no local church was big enough to hold all the politicians seeking political gain from their show church attendance. 
If you do not know what political pandering is then I will also explain that to you.
He did so to offset the attacks from his opponents, the Federalists, you know-there were politics in those days and the church attempted in insert their influence in any way, as usual because there are those that believe words instead of actions, the same as now as illustrated in this thread. 
The absurdity of your claim and lack of any knowledge of history is that The Federalists attacked Jefferson at every chance they could.
For NOT being Christian like. They labeled him as an infidel and preachers and churches nationwide opposed Jefferson because of his non support of their causes.
A little history goes a long way in explaining things. 
Jefferson opposed national prayer, was attacked by the religous right of those times and was an opponent of a national religion.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> American Cowboy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Certainly sounds familiar.....

Again, it's so sad for people today to try to deny the greatest thing about our Founders...that they did something NO OTHER COUNTRY had ever done.   Created a new country with a new government free of the religious baggage all others had.   Genius.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

Nice revision of history.

A little bit of truth thrown in to make it more palatable...I like that.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nice revision of history.



What is the revision you refer to?



> A little bit of truth thrown in to make it more palatable...I like that.



What part is not true....be specific.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

"

[SIZE=-1]Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as *it has pleased the almighty God *by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of *Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. *Amen". Sounds Christian to me.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "*...God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise *without His aid?"*[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles *on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity *... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Isit not that the Declaration of Independence first organized *the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemers mission *upon earth? That it laid *the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" *Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that *Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. *The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: *"By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; *and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, *religion and morality are indispensable supports. *In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, *who should labor to subvert these great pillars." *Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- *of our Christian nation *to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people*...This is a Christian nation." *There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is *no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders *of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.[/SIZE] 
[SIZE=-1]It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history."[/SIZE]

Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "
> 
> [SIZE=-1]*Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. *For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as *it has pleased the almighty God *by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence"[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of *Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. *Amen". Sounds Christian to me.[/SIZE]
> ...





So.....you are saying that in all the preparation, rough drafts, examples, etc. leading up to the FINAL DRAFT of the Constitution, god is mentioned....but is LEFT OUT of the Final Draft.......and you call that evidence for YOUR SIDE?      

Why do you try so hard to denigrate the genius and wisdom of our Founding Fathers?  Why do you try to put them on the Trash Heap of all those others thru out history who cannot or will not remove the baggage of religious superstition from their governing of each other?

They left god out of the Final Draft of the Constitution  FOR A PURPOSE.   They made a conscious decision at the end that it was the BEST (and bravest) thing to do.  And I applaud them for it.   You....you try to change history because you cannot deal with it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

Yup. I know the founding fathers didn't suddenly decide on the eve of drafting the constitution that their belief in God was no longer a motivating factor.

Again, you really need to study what "found" means. The consistution is not our only foundation document.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

John Adams:


&#8220;The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.&#8221;


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

John Q. Adams:

"
&#8220;In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.&#8221;


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nice revision of history.
> 
> A little bit of truth thrown in to make it more palatable...I like that.



Point out ANY your claims with specifics.
Are you denying that the Federalists in the election DID NOT call Jefferson an infidel, published pamphlets printed with such language and most churches and preachers of the day then publicly scolded Jefferson for not being Christian enough?
Is that your claim?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

Allie and her friends here have no clue what a Federalist or anti Federalist was much less what they believed in. They claim that anyone that mentions those facts is a "revisionist".
They believe all of the Founders believed in the same thing, all had the same relgious beliefs, attended and tithed in church weekly and had fire side chats patting each other on the back praising God singing Kum ba ya.
They are the product of government schools.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

Allie and others here believe that there was no such thing as Federalists and Anti Federalists.
These folks here know nothing of history, the politics of that era and what happened during the revolution, why it was fought and the stuggles in The Continental Convention.
They believe all of the Founders believed exactly the same thing, went to church weekly, tithed all the time and had fire side chats singing


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

Where has ANYONE DISPUTED ANYWHERE THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN GOD????
Beliefs do not found nations.
You are a closet liberal Allie.
Rely on beliefs instead of actions just like the liberals do.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yup. I know the founding fathers didn't suddenly decide on the eve of drafting the constitution that their belief in God was no longer a motivating factor.
> 
> Again, you really need to study what "found" means. The consistution is not our only foundation document.



But it IS the foundation of our country, our laws, our government......no matter how much you may want to pretend it is not.


Why do you try to denigrate the wisdom, the innovation  of our Founders?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> John Adams:
> 
> 
> The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.



That is what John Adams SAID.


This is what he DID:

Signed the Treaty of Tripoli.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes. He signed it when Article 11 was Arabic scribble between two Moslem leaders that meant absolutely nothing. 

The Article 11 that you keep crowing about (as if even if it wasn't a fraud it would sideline all the real foundation documents) was added later, by an unknown felon, who, like yourself, wanted to change history.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes. He signed it when *Article 11 was Arabic scribble between two Moslem leaders that meant absolutely nothing. *
> 
> The Article 11 that you keep crowing about (as if even if it wasn't a fraud it would sideline all the real foundation documents) was added later, by an unknown felon, who, like yourself, wanted to change history.



Talk about revisionist history, Allie.

Article 11 isn't even in the Arabic copy.   


And then, people like you, who cannot or will not face that our Founders were genius' for making the first truely secular country, tried to debunk a document WITH Article 11 in our National Archives.     You might want to ask yourself why was and is there such an EFFORT to debunk an actual Treaty in our National Archives.........

Let me help you a little bit:

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

with this:  (bold mine)



> The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has gained attention because *the English version* included a clause about religion in America:[3]
> As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,&#8212;as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,&#8212;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.



and this:



> The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. *Article 11* of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. *However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress.* The ratification, though, was merely a token gesture, as it was the product of an ambassador with plenipotentiary powers; and the Treaty was bought at a negotiated price prior to its arrival in Congress.[16]



and more on whether Article 11 was in the Treaty at vote and signing:



> However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

"The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as &#8220;the original&#8221; was an Englishversion copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).
3) There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree thatArticle 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy, and most probably bythe America diplomat Joel Barlow, who helped negotiate the treaty and who washimself a skeptic of Christianity.
4) When the tampered English translation version was presented to Congress forratification in 1797, in spite of Article 11 inserted and included, they had to passthe treaty anyway out of political expedience and immediate urgency to quicklystop the carnage of militant pirate attacks upon American merchant ships in theMediterranean Sea. Because of the situation at hand, there would be no time tore-draft such a treaty and run it through the diplomatic channels again.
5) Eight years later when America gained a military upper hand on the situation, thisTreaty was renegotiated in 1805-6, and the &#8220;non-Christian&#8221; Article 11 phrase wasconspicuously removed and absent!
6) Those who attempt to use the Treaty of Tripoli as so called evidence proposingthat this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, typically ignore theTreaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War.  "

Treaty of Tripoli, Not the 'BARLOW FRAUD' but the TRUE CHRISTIAN Treaty Story


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.
> 
> I applaud our Founders for the wonderful thing they did DESPITE the christian baggage of over 1500 years.



It's not an issue of "religious baggage".  It's an issue of the ideological liberty that the principles of natural law and the God of nature provide in classical theoryfor all, the theist, atheist and agnostic alike.  Judeo-Christianity proper and the founding principles of this nation are not synonymous, but the latter are derived from the former.   

You don't know what you're talking about.  Most likely you're just another brainwashed product of the public education system.  You're derision is absurd.  _You're_ the ignorant fool.

The bottom line:  this nation _was_ founded on the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought.  That is the essence of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law.  That is the essence of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, the document through which the Constitution is to be understood and interpreted.

Those who argue otherwise are either ignoramuses, liars or both.  They are ideologues whose agenda is that of statist swine.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence&#8221; * 
No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsifiedArticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treatiesand Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United StatesGovernment, Record group 11; National Archives)
7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part ofsecular humanists (their &#8220;strongest&#8221; isolated claim that America was notestablished upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a thedocument. Its claimed &#8220;non-Christian part&#8221; is readily admitted by non biasedexperts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. Byany standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature."

Treaty of Tripoli, Not the 'BARLOW FRAUD' but the TRUE CHRISTIAN Treaty Story


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

"With the culminating events13and ending treaties with the Muslim states of North Africa, there was no mention in anydocument whatsoever, or even close to it, that America was not a Christian nation. For aperson to present a claim that America is not a Christian nation under the Constitution bybasing that deduction upon Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 only reveals theirignorance in extreme haste in not knowing the history of the subject matter.At best, the &#8220;Article 11 argument&#8221; is a shaky fragile reed in trying to build a frameupon which to stand. There are so many holes in the Tripoli Treaty Article 11 theory, allcentered around speculation, distortions, mistranslations, mistrust, and cleric error, thateven a trained and schooled atheist should know better than to rest his anti-Christian/American claim upon such a single clouded piece of history. Evidently, tosome of these blind diehards it doesn&#8217;t seem to matter. But for the seeker of truth, let therecords of history speak for themselves. Christians need not apologize to anyone forAmerica being what it is -- God&#8217;s Kingdom Nation that will prevail in the end, over allconflicts to derail it from its divine destiny. "
COPYRIGHT (c) 1977 Cambridge Theological Seminary


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.
> ...



Ah, some more of that Christian principle, I see.



> The bottom line:  this nation _was_ founded on the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought.  That is the essence of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law.  That is the essence of the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, the document through which the Constitution is to be understood and interpreted.



The bottom line is THIS...our nation was UNIQUE at the time it formed.  Our Founders went completely 180 degrees from the Judeo-Christian rigamarole that Europe ran on for over 1500 years.   Our principles come from the Enlightenment movement, a philosophy at odds with Judeo-Christian principles that European monarchs and governments used for their own benefit and for the abuse of the natural rights of their people.

Why some people want to deny the beauty of what our Founders did is a puzzlement.   



> Those who argue otherwise are either ignoramuses, liars or both.  They are ideologues whose agenda is that of statist swine.



Ah, more Christian principles....


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence *
> No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsifiedArticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treatiesand Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United StatesGovernment, Record group 11; National Archives)
> 7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part ofsecular humanists (their strongest isolated claim that America was notestablished upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a thedocument. Its claimed non-Christian part is readily admitted by non biasedexperts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. Byany standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature."
> 
> Treaty of Tripoli, Not the 'BARLOW FRAUD' but the TRUE CHRISTIAN Treaty Story


Someone sure is trying hard to debunk the FACT that the Treaty of Tripoli says what it says IN ENGLISH...and that ENGLISH version is what was unanimously voted on by  the Senate and signed by the same John Adams you like to quote.    Nothing you try to fake changes that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence *
> ...


 
Article 11 is the fake:

""The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as the original was an Englishversion copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).
3) *There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree thatArticle 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy*"


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.
> ...



The Constitution and our Laws are not interpreted through the DOI.
Cite one piece of case law to support that gibberish.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

"&#8220;As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, &#8220;the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,&#8221; *does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. "

We Started Out a Christian Nation


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, *does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. "
> 
> We Started Out a Christian Nation



Your link claims Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli "to be politically correct".
You folks are as naive and gullible as they come. You believe Adams and the ENTIRE Senate voted unanimously that we are in no way a Christian nation to be "politically correct".
 
I doubt you even read your own links. If the ideology somewhat fits your agenda you post it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

I'd say the reaching comes when anti-Christians want to ignore the reams of evidence that shows the FF intention to found a nation upon Christian precepts...by dragging out a mouldy forgery to prove your case.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Spuriously or not...it is in the copy that was VOTED unanimously for by the Senate and signed by the President.    No matter how much you try to wiggle, that is the fact of the matter.   Article 11 was there, it was read along with the rest of the English version of the Treaty and the Treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams with that section present.

You don't like it for a very, very good reason.....It, along with the sans-god Constitution, blow your argument right out of the water.

Actions speak louder than words.....I know you don't like it, but they do.
The Senate's ACTION.....voting unanimously for the Treaty of Tripoli WITH Article 11 there for them to read.
President John Adams' ACTION...signing that same treaty with that same Article 11 in there.


Now you are flailing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence *
> ...



In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained the quotation.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jun 2, 2011)

Well it wasn't founded on Atheism,Buddhism,Hinduism,or Islam. So guess what?...It was founded on Christianity. All of our Founding Fathers were devout Christians. This cannot be denied. I understand kooky Atheist-Socialists love trying to re-write History but as usual they're just wrong. The U.S. is of course a Nation founded on Christianity. The Atheist-Socialists will continue deluding themselves on this but that's just par for the course for them. Their claims are not based on reality in any way.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

I would like to know why Bod thinks the fake Article of 11 invalidates every other utterance and founding document attesting to this country's Christian's roots....

Does the fake Article 11 invalidate the Declaration?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I'm sorry...but does that change that the Original Treaty of Tripoli WAS unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by John Adams?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

It was fake so it was adjusted accordingly.

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I would like to know why Bod thinks the *fake Article of 11 *invalidates every other utterance and founding document attesting to this country's Christian's roots....
> 
> Does the fake Article 11 invalidate the Declaration?



Isn't it odd how you think by saying that again and again, you somehow can alter the reality that Article 11 was in the Treaty of Tripoli's English copy...and that that copy was read and unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by John Adams?


Maybe if you click your heels three times......


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes, it was pushed through..then they went back and removed it.

So the final treaty didn't have it.

I think that pretty resoundingly illustrates the determination of those who signed to make sure that all knew we are a Christian country.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.



Yes.  We have a secular government.



> Ah, some more of that Christian principle, I see.



Ah, some more obtuse dissembling.



> The bottom line is THIS...our nation was UNIQUE at the time it formed.  Our Founders went completely 180 degrees from the Judeo-Christian rigamarole that Europe ran on for over 1500 years.



Clueless.  The socio-political implications of the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought eschew state established churches.  The European nations did not comply with the teachings of Judeo-Christianity at all.  You don't know what you're talking about.  



> Our principles come from the Enlightenment movement, a philosophy at odds with Judeo-Christian principles that European monarchs and governments used for their own benefit and for the abuse of the natural rights of their people.



"Our principles come from the Enlightenment movement. . . ."  Bravo!  

But, no, not "a philosophy at odds with Judeo-Christian principles", as I already told you.

What the European monarchies did was in violation of both the natural law of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism _and_ the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity.  You don't know what you're talking about.

But precisely what political system of thought from the of Enlightenment, Sir?  You don't know, do you?  (Even though I told you in the above)



> Why some people want to deny the beauty of what our Founders did is a puzzlement.



Uh-huh.  Well, it's not a puzzle at all.  Lefties want to deny the truth about what the Founders did because they're statist swine, who, like the European monarchs before them, wish to elevate the State above the head of the God of nature and destroy the construct of unbridgeable rights.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > On the one hand, it is SWEET that our Founders were so wise as to create the FIRST truely secular government in history not saddled with any of that religious claptrap even tho they themselves were mostly of the Christian persuasion.
> ...


 
Well said, and bears repeating.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yes


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, it was pushed through..then they went back and removed it.
> 
> So the final treaty didn't have it.
> 
> I think that pretty resoundingly illustrates the determination of those who signed to make sure that all knew we are a Christian country.



The final treaty was APPROVED by unanimous vote of the Senate and signed by Adams.....


The Treaty you refer to was with a different President (Jefferson) after war broke out between the U.S. and Tripoli over tribute the U.S. paid to the Pasha.  

Your attempts so far:

1.  Saying Article 11 was only in Arabic....proven wrong

2.  Saying that Article 11 was added later after ratification...proven wrong.

3.   Saying that Article 11 is fake and was never in the Treaty...proven wrong.

4.  Saying that Article 11 was "forced" upon the Senate (remember unanimous vote) and President Adams...proven wrong

5.  Saying that that Treaty was not the "final" treaty and that they "went back and removed it"....and using a totally different treaty written after war with the Barbary Pirates with a totally different President.....laughably wrong.


You continue to Flail.   This Treaty really's got your goat.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 2, 2011)

God created the universe. We'd be pretty remiss to think he had nothing to do with forming a nation


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Really....with a different President, under different circumstances, after a different war, with different conditions.....9 year later.

Show me were the 1806 treaty cancels out Article 11 of the 1797 treaty.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> God created the universe. We'd be pretty remiss to think he had nothing to do with forming a nation



what god?


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > God created the universe. We'd be pretty remiss to think he had nothing to do with forming a nation
> ...


uhm, the only god


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Why? You would just deny it.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Says who?


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


God,  who else


----------



## peach174 (Jun 2, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Bod doesn't believe in the one and only God Spoonman.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

It doesn't matter. She's just bloviating anyway.

It doesn't matter what God she believes in. It matters what the intent of the FF was, and it was to found a country on Christian principle. That's what they said in private, in public, and in founding documents such as the Declaration.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Explain to me, L_L how two treaties, 9 years apart, 2 different presidents, a war in between is really the same treaty.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

"

*Patrick Henry* 
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And does that make me in some way.....less?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> "
> 
> *Patrick Henry*
> Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."



Honey....Patrick Henry did not ratify the Constitution.   He hated it and fought against it as a leader of the Anti-Federalists.  You will have to do better than that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

You're an ignorant liar, Bod.
And as you know, the Supreme Court DID state that we were founded upon Christian principle.

"Political science professors at the University of Houston collected 15,000 writings from the founding era, isolating 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founding Fathers.

Thirty-four percent of the quotes came directly from the Bible! Other sources were French philosopher Baron Charles de Montesquieu, 8.3 percent; Sir William Blackstone (18th-century English judge, author, professor and lecturer of law at Oxford University), 7.9 percent; and John Locke, 2.9 percent.

Paschal says the Constitution does not acknowledge our peoples' dependence on God or their past.

Here are some quotes from our Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution. *Benjamin Franklin:*


_&#8220;The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?&#8221; (June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention)_

_&#8220;Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.&#8221;_

_&#8220;A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.&#8221;_ 
*George Washington:*


_&#8220;Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible.&#8221; _
*John Adams:*


_&#8220;Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.&#8221;_ 
*James Madison:*


_&#8220;We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.&#8221;_ 
*Thomas Jefferson:*


_&#8220;No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be._

_&#8220;The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man, and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.&#8221;_

In 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol as a church building for Christian worship services. As president, Jefferson attended these services and employed the military band to play for them, at taxpayer expense.

Author Jerry Newcombe says, &#8220;Without exception, the constitutions of all 50 states refer to the Almighty God of the universe, the Author and Sustainer of our liberty.&#8221; Almost every Ivy League school was established primarily to train ministers of the gospel. Harvard College's first presidents insisted that there could be no true knowledge or wisdom without Jesus Christ.

In 1892, the Supreme Court stated, &#8220;Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. This is a religious people. This is a Christian nation." (Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S.)

There are thousands of sources that refute Paschal's statements, including books and articles by Bill Federer, Jerry Newcombe, David Gibbs Jr., David Barton and Gary DeMar.

I do agree with Paschal's statement that America is becoming more secular, but this is to our shame.

President John Quincy Adams said, &#8220;The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of Christianity with the principles of civil government.&#8221;

America's founding was, indeed, based on Judeo-Christian principles | The News-Sentinel - Fort Wayne IN


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I will after you explain to me why you dismiss every piece of documentation including the DOI, every states Constitution and the reams of writings from our founding fathers that specifically mentions God and Christian principles. The only document you have is a ONE treaty. So that ONE treaty nullifies ALL the rest of the historical documents and text?


Face it, you've had your ass handed to you many times but you are just too fucking stupid to realize it.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 2, 2011)

bodecea said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



No, not one bit. I was just explaining it to spoonman


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2011)

It is true that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution as presented for ratification because he thought it would create too strong a central government.  As an anti-Federalist he was much more a libertarian/Classical Liberal than even those who approved the Constitution.  And he refused elective public office on the same principle.

He WAS instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, however, and we can thank him and others like him for attention to protecting unalienable rights to a greater degree than the initial Framers.

And he was absolutely 100% convinced that the nation was founded on Christian principles and the Constitution as framed supported that concept.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




I don't dismiss the DoI...it helps prove my point.   

I don't dismiss state constitutions....I'm just aware that the federal constitution trumps them every time.

I don't dismiss the WRITINGS and SPEAKINGS of Founding Fathers.   I just recognise that ACTIONS speak louder than words.....they talk of God and Christianity.....WHERE is it in our Constitution, our laws, our Supreme Court cases.....

And....what ARE those Christian tenets (clearly and definitely CHRISTIAN) that our country is founded on?   Where oh where is that list?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It is true that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution as presented for ratification because he thought it would create too strong a central government.  As an anti-Federalist he was much more a libertarian/Classical Liberal than even those who approved the Constitution.  And he refused elective public office on the same principle.
> 
> He WAS instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, however, and we can thank him and others like him for attention to protecting unalienable rights to a greater degree than the initial Framers.
> 
> And he was absolutely 100% convinced that the nation was founded on Christian principles and the Constitution as framed supported that concept.



And since he was so firm in that belief and had a hand in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, where is that mention of Christian tenets in our laws?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 2, 2011)

Don't bother answering Lonestar.  The rest of us have answered that same question so many times in this thread I've lost count.  I think he or she doesn't want an answer.  I think he or she is engaging in the sport of seeing how many times s/he can make the idiots answer it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Don't bother answering Lonestar.  The rest of us have answered that same question so many times in this thread I've lost count.  I think he or she doesn't want an answer.  I think he or she is engaging in the sport of seeing how many times s/he can make the idiots answer it.



Some people just choose to remain ignorant.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother answering Lonestar.  The rest of us have answered that same question so many times in this thread I've lost count.  I think he or she doesn't want an answer.  I think he or she is engaging in the sport of seeing how many times s/he can make the idiots answer it.
> ...



That is true....our Founders introduce one of the most wonderful and wise innovations to the world...running 180 degrees from the baggage of European governments and some people here use faulty facts and half truths to deny the greatness of what they did.

The good news is, we remain a secular country welcoming all who wish to join us as long as they follow our secular laws....and that we can THANK our Founders for.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 2, 2011)

Uh...wrong again.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Uh...wrong again.



Uh...tell us again how Patrick Henry was a ratifier of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 2, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It is true that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution as presented for ratification because he thought it would create too strong a central government.  As an anti-Federalist he was much more a libertarian/Classical Liberal than even those who approved the Constitution.  And he refused elective public office on the same principle.
> 
> He WAS instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, however, and we can thank him and others like him for attention to protecting unalienable rights to a greater degree than the initial Framers.
> 
> And he was absolutely 100% convinced that the nation was founded on Christian principles and the Constitution as framed supported that concept.



From *AllieBaba's* post:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that *this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians*; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason *peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.* &#8212;Patrick Henry​
Regardless of Henry's position on the Constitution, the point that has been made over and over again is that the Republic was founded on the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity, not on the imperatives of any other religious system of thought, not on the collectivist political theory of Continental Europe or any other statist paradigm.

*bodecea* just likes to avoid the idea of the founding and jump to the Constitution, as if the latter could rightly be interpreted without the founding principle anyway.  But, of course, the theory upon which the nation was founded is irrefutable, so *bodecea* keeps trying to jump the shark.

*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.* &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​
Of course, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is Jefferson's paraphrase of Locke's triadic construct of life, liberty and property.  

On another thread I explained to *The Rabbi*, who had no idea what I was talking about, btw, and pretended to know things about that which he is clueless (LOL!):

John Locke extrapolated his political theory of natural law in the _Two Treatises of Government _from the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, i.e., the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian construct of free will and the preeminence of the Creator over the State; these entail the self-determination and free-association of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism predicated on (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) unbridgeable rights and (3) the notion that the family of nature is the first principle of private property, you know, as in the Declaration of Independence.​
LINK

Was Locke's political theory derived from the moral imperatives of biblical doctrine as they pertain to civil government?

Yes.  Absolutely! 

Did the Founders of this country prize the Lockean construct of natural law above all others?

Yes.  Absolutely!

Do the political aspects of any other religious or secular system of thought provide for universal ideological liberty&#8212;for the theist of every stripe, the atheist and the agnostic?  Did any others recognize the preeminence of individual free will above that of the collective will?

Hell no!  They are all the stuff of statist theocracies or secular collectivisms, the people ruled by the few or by the mob, the individual trampled beneath their feet.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 2, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is true that Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution as presented for ratification because he thought it would create too strong a central government.  As an anti-Federalist he was much more a libertarian/Classical Liberal than even those who approved the Constitution.  And he refused elective public office on the same principle.
> ...



Tell me more about John Locke getting his ideas of Natural Rights from Judeo-Christian systems of thought.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2011)

M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread.  Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.

I am on the record that those arguing opposite Bodecea, Gadawg, and others here have adequately made their case and have not been rebutted with anything credible or verifiable.

Those for the USA being founded on Christian principles - WIN
Those opposed - LOSE


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread. Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.
> 
> I am on the record that those arguing opposite Bodecea, Gadawg, and others here have adequately made their case and have not been rebutted with anything credible or verifiable.
> 
> ...


 
You can't win against people who don't understand what truth, fact and knowledge are. They don't get humanity, they don't understand honor, and their whole existence is facile. I just can't figure out if they know that and like it, or if they're just so pathetic they can't move off that plane....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 3, 2011)

Christianity and it's principles are RELIGION.
The United States of America was not founded on religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread. Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.
> ...



Sticks and stones with the white towel thrown in behind it.
I like it!


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread.  Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.
> 
> I am on the record that those arguing opposite Bodecea, Gadawg, and others here have adequately made their case and have not been rebutted with anything credible or verifiable.
> 
> ...



I'd like to hear more on his thoughts on John Locke using Judeo_Christian thought in his Treatises.....

So, why do you want to stop all debate at this point...and declare an unproven victory?  Do you sense failure if you do not stop debate now?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 3, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread.  Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.
> 
> I am on the record that those arguing opposite Bodecea, Gadawg, and others here have adequately made their case and have not been rebutted with anything credible or verifiable.
> 
> ...



I see.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 3, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Christianity and it's principles are RELIGION.
> The United States of America was not founded on religion.


 


You haven't understood anything.  Your statement is nonsensical, your ignorance, astounding.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity and it's principles are RELIGION.
> ...



His statement is nonsensical?   Wait....are you saying that the United States WAS founded on religion?  Seriously?   Please clarify.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Are you saying religion had nothing at all to do with the founding of this nation?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 3, 2011)

Sometimes she says that. Sometimes she doesn't. Sometimes she pretends "found" is the same thing as "create a theocracy".

Here's what Bod does in a nutshell. You make a point, and it's a good point. This usually happens about 2 minutes after she's posted some ridiculous statement about something she knows nothing about.

Instead of addressing the statement you made, or even referring to her own statement, she will try to get you to make a completely different, unrelated statement.

For example, Bod says "The tribe of the Torrance was tortured by Reagan during an expedition to Galadar in 1585."

You say "Reagan wasn't alive in 1585."
Bod: "Are you saying that in 1585 there was no Torrance Tribe in Galadar???!!"

Puzzled, you say, "What?"
Bod says "I WIN!!"


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 3, 2011)

Followed by, "You must really think about me a lot!"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I'd like to hear more on his thoughts on John Locke using Judeo_Christian thought in his Treatises.....
> 
> So, why do you want to stop all debate at this point...and declare an unproven victory?  Do you sense failure if you do not stop debate now?



It's not a matter of winning or losing.  It's a matter of knowing or not knowing your history and understanding the nature of the Republic's political heritage. 

It's not my treatise.  LOL!  It's a simple historical factoid.  Apparently, you are strictly a product of the public education system.

During the colonial era the works of three thinkers above all others owned the ideological terrain of the Anglo-American ethos:  Newton (the order and mechanics of heavenly bodies), Locke (political theory) and Bacon (scientific theory).  

The revolutionaries argued Locke, the Founders argued Locke, the Framers argued Locke.  

Locke, Locke, Locke.

Where have you been?  Indeed, up until the last forty years or so, this was common knowledge, an every-day-walk-in-the-park aspect of an American education.

Sad.  Tragic.  Decline and Fall.

Start with the _Two Treatises of Government_ and the _Essay Concerning Toleration_.  Then study the works of the revolutionaries, the Founders and the Framers concerning the works of Locke.

I see that any further discussion is otherwise futile.  Get back to me in a month.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Some...most of our founders practiced various versions of Christianity....but they were extremely wise and left that out of the creation of our government.   They made the FIRST country truely secular in nature with no one religion influencing thought.   They are to be greatly honored for their innovation and brilliance.  Our Constitution is the greatest blueprint for government ever written...ever.  And it is completely secular in nature.

Edited to add:   There were those at the Constitutional Convention that wanted Christianity injected into our Country's foundation...they  lost the argument.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to hear more on his thoughts on John Locke using Judeo_Christian thought in his Treatises.....
> ...



Ah, I love those little personal shots of Christian principle.



> During the colonial era the works of three thinkers above all others owned the ideological terrain of the Anglo-American ethos:  Newton (the order and mechanics of heavenly bodies), Locke (political theory) and Bacon (scientific theory).
> 
> The revolutionaries argued Locke, the Founders argued Locke, the Framers argued Locke.
> 
> ...




Actually I totally agree that Locke is the primary foundation of our Founders ideas.   Locke is the PREMIER political science philosopher of the Enlightenment.   My question is on your stating that HE was restating already established judeo-christian principles.  I was hoping you could provide a distinct connection....and not be insulting about it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You still don't get it.

What part of founding this nation do you not understand?

The creation of the government was AFTER this country was founded as was the Constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> what god?



If he said "Gaia" would you suddenly agree?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> And does that make me in some way.....less?



No, of course not.















Voting for Barack Obama does, though.......


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M.D.R. be assured that question has been answered again and again and again in this thread. Bodecea won't debate you but will just keep repeating the questions and when everybody is finally sick of them will declare victory.
> ...



Depends on your definition of win.  

If you mean 'win' as in Bodecea, Gadawg, and a few others on the opposition side admitting they lost, then you're right.  You can't win that way.

If you mean 'win' as in having the far superior argument, then you and several others arguing on the 'pro Christian foundation for the USA" side have absolutely made your case and won the debate by a huge margin.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The Foundation of our Country...the way our country is set up IS the Constitution.   Yes, we gained our independence before that...but the Articles of Confederation did not work, we had to retool.   And the Constitution is the heart and soul of our country.   And our founders left any shred of religion out of it.  And they were very Wise.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > And does that make me in some way.....less?
> ...




What with Obama losing the presidency and all......


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > what god?
> ...



No...why would I?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Actually I totally agree that Locke is the primary foundation of our Founders ideas.   Locke is the PREMIER political science philosopher of the Enlightenment.   My question is on your stating that HE was restating already established judeo-christian principles.  I was hoping you could provide a distinct connection....and not be insulting about it.



I didn't insult you.  I suggested that you study up, and I've already given you the basics.  

John Locke extrapolated his political theory of natural law in the _Two Treatises of Government_ from the Judeo-Christian ethical system of thought, i.e., the socio-political ramifications of the Judeo-Christian construct of free will and the preeminence of the Creator over the State; these entail the self-determination and free-association of the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism predicated on (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) unbridgeable rights and (3) the notion that the family of nature is the first principle of private property, you know, as in the Declaration of Independence.​
In the _Two Treatises of Civil Government_, Locke repeatedly appeals to the contentions of scripture regarding the state of man relative to divine law as the only reliable course for natural law.  

The _First Treatise_ refutes the monarchial patriarchalism of  Robert Filmer's _Patriarcha_, driving home the point, backed by scripture, that the family of nature under God, not the State, is the first principle of private property, the practical means by which men assert their inherent liberty in the real world in both the state of nature and in the state of society.  The _Second Treatise_ outlines Locke's theory of man in the state of civil society based on natural rights and contract theory.

Locke establishes the foundation for his theory of natural law with Hooker's formulation from _Ecclesiastical Polity_ before he goes on to hammer out the system in his own terms:  

[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.  &#8212;_Two Treatises on Government_, Bk II sec 135​ 
Others have given you the testimony of the Founders.  In any event, you've read the Declaration of Independence haven't you?  That's Lockean natural law 101.

You don't seem to want the truth.

What else is there?  What do you want?

_Read_.


*More suggested reading*:
Locke's _The Reasonableness of Christianity_ 
Locke's _A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity_
Locke's _Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity II_


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> No...why would I?



No reason, you just seemed like an "Algore" level whack-job...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2011)

bodecea said:


> What with Obama losing the presidency and all......



I sure would hope so. It would restore some small faith in humanity for me.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 3, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > What with Obama losing the presidency and all......
> ...



Psst...what with Obama losing the Presidency in 2008 and all.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 4, 2011)

I didn't read the whole thread, but I was searching for free public domain books to download for my eReader and came across this from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America 1835:

_"Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are  comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality  is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is  religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no  country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a  greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can  be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human  nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most  enlightened and free nation of the earth.

_ _The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty  so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them  conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does  not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate  in the soul rather than to live._

_There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only  equaled by their ignorance and their debasement, while in America one of  the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfills all the  outward duties of religion with fervor._

_Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the  country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I  stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences  resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In  France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of  freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in  America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned  in common over the same country."_

​Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 4, 2011)

Missourian said:


> "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live."



Just so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 4, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live."
> ...



And even with all that Christianity included in the process, no theocracy developed or threatened to develop.  And even the little theocracies here and there in the colonies had pretty much dissolved by their own choice by the end of the 18th Century.

And even with all that Christianity included in the process, the Founders gave us the most free, most productive, most innovative, and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  A nation founded and based on the principle of unalienable rights that came from their Christian faith.

I can't understand why even staunch Atheists would not appreciate and celebrate that unless they despise freedom, productivity, innovation, and prosperity and prefer the more oppressive societies under monarchs, dictators, socialist or totalitarian governments.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 4, 2011)

Missourian said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but I was searching for free public domain books to download for my eReader and came across this from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America 1835:
> 
> _"Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are  comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality  is everywhere the same. In the United States the sovereign authority is  religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no  country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a  greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can  be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human  nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most  enlightened and free nation of the earth.
> 
> ...



An outside observer.....I DO love what he said about the South tho.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jun 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I can't understand why even staunch Atheists would not appreciate and celebrate that unless they despise freedom, productivity, innovation, and prosperity and prefer the more oppressive societies under monarchs, dictators, socialist or totalitarian governments.



Actually, I do know a few atheists, rare to be sure, who strenuously oppose those who distort the historical record, precisely because the construct that divinity is the only legitimate source and guarantor of human life and liberty is the only logically defensible position against the tyranny of collectivist civil rights.  

As one of my atheists friends once told me:  "I do not believe that God exists, but I do politics as if He did."

Naturally, he's a classical liberal, a conservative-libertarian like myself of the Lockean old school.  He does not attack theism and admires Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought.  

Most atheists are either leftists or libertarian socialists.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 4, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I can't understand why even staunch Atheists would not appreciate and celebrate that unless they despise freedom, productivity, innovation, and prosperity and prefer the more oppressive societies under monarchs, dictators, socialist or totalitarian governments.
> ...



As do I.  They rarely show up on threads like this though.  The Atheists we get are those who are more likely to want to destroy all positive religious references, symbolism, and significance in history as well as elsewhere in the country.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Which came first, the founding of this nation or the Constitution?

I've asked this at least once before. 

You seem to think this country wasn't founded until 1787 when the Constitution was created.

And did I hear someone say you had come sort of degree in history?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The Founding, of course.   And they made mistakes at the beginning and were wise enough TO FIX THEM themselves.   And I honor them for that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Exactly. So why do you keep bringing up the Constitution in a discussion about our founding?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 6, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Because the Constitution is the FINAL product of those very Founders.   We would be having a very, very different discussion in this thread if it were not for how the Constitution is written, what it does, and what it stands for.

Deny that if you can.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



what about all the amendments?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 6, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 
I deny it, you fucking idiot. The foundation and the final product cannot be one and the same thing.

Jesus.


----------



## Iridescence (Jun 6, 2011)

Nope, it sure can't. Just read Revelations, even that says 'a beast rises'... that very beast being the product of  previous chapters entailed...


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 6, 2011)

Your ancestors were redecorated?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 6, 2011)

Oh, that's right. You're descended from the noble Canadian Mounty.

Or are those park rangers?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Your ancestors were redecorated?


You can take history lessons with Palin.


----------



## Ropey (Jun 6, 2011)

Fascist Canuck posts as a troll. Please do not tie his moronic posts to a Canadian identity. We don't do that with your nut bars.


----------



## Iridescence (Jun 6, 2011)

What?? (okay, I'm obviously not Dave Cheppelle?)

When I hear mockers of our government fling their shit... it makes me wanna take them back to preschool to learn a few manners and a better way of making points within an argument.

Obama is our president... one that has been appointed by a system that 'we the people' still support, for the most part... or do we? Is the whole issue more that the majority of this nation is no longer Christian or is it that people are starting to question the definition of Christianity? Both?

When I see Barack H. Obama's name, because it seems almost necessary to break things down a bit for 'us', I am most definitely a slow minded one at times... I see 'to be a rake is insane obey ma' or something of the like. It fits the time in which we live and it also suits the struggles we face today with our ever-lovin' "equality" drive.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 6, 2011)

Can you say that again in a common language?


----------



## Iridescence (Jun 6, 2011)

Do you mean I have to add a few 'f' words?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 6, 2011)

Please. And eliminate the punctuation.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 6, 2011)

Fascist Canuck said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Your ancestors were redecorated?
> ...



Who wiped whose asses?  

(Ok, I've give you Canada...we really messed up there...several times.)


----------



## mike beev (Jun 6, 2011)

Given all these quotes about Christianity and America's founding, whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?  The proposed GOP budget shows no compassion for the poor, the old or our children.  It promotes war and increasing the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower class.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Jun 16, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > The Founding Fathers are all dead.  You have to read their letters to understand their intent.  They sure as hell didn't intend for the US to be a Christian theocracy.
> ...



Allie Baba thinks the US government is founded on Christian principles.  In that regard, she considers the US a Christian nation.  We're not.  If it was up to her, Christian principles would be the law of our land, instead of the Constitution.  We would have no religious freedom, or we would have freedom to practice Christianity alone.


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Jun 16, 2011)

Not only wasn't this nation founded on Christian principles, neither were most Christians.



> If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be &#8212; a Christian.  Mark Twain


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2011)

The majority of Christians worldwide, and many in the colonies, at the time of the revolution were totally against the revolution and labeled our ancestors as "terrorists". 
Guess what Adams, Franklin, Washington and ALL of the Founders called themselves up until the revolution: BRITISH. 
A large segment of the religous communities moved into Canada which was still under British rule. 100,000 British loyalists immigrated to Canada from the colonies FOLLOWING INDEPENDENCE. 
Again, you folks know NOTHING about any history and babble what your 3rd grade Sunday school teacher taught you. 
Most of the residents in the southern colonies opposed the revolution. 
The Founders were Christian men but rebelled against allying themselves with the religous chains that had shackled them in colonial bondage. 
They were radicals.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 17, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



This thread is still going on? ANd you're still wrong?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Allie Baba thinks the US government is founded on Christian principles.  In that regard, she considers the US a Christian nation.  We're not.  If it was up to her, Christian principles would be the law of our land, instead of the Constitution.  We would have no religious freedom, or we would have freedom to practice Christianity alone.



Yes, we would become the Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I've never advocated state religion. That's a lie Sky likes to tell herself and others. Unlike Sky, I advocate freedom of religion, including Christianity.

Sky has stated on more than one occasion that if she had her way she'd persecute Christians in avowed Christians would not be permitted to teach or participate in politics. THAT would make us like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and a few other tyrannies.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2011)

The nation was founded with some Christian principles of course. The Founders and the culture here was prmiarily Christian. PEOPLE had and have religous principles. The European governments had religous principles in place to explain to the dumb masses their monarchies were founded and sanctioned BY GOD.
We didn't want it that way. I know many of you do want that, a government where the leaders all proclaim that God wanted them to run for office. That is why we had 3 state that this week at the debate.
But the claim that this nation was founded ON religous principles is absurd and there is nothing ANYWHERE to prove that.
This nation and government was specifically founded on NO religous principles. This nation was founded on THE LAW.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 18, 2011)

Never mind that all of our documents mention God or creator.
That the Declaration of Independence says that we have unalienable Rights from God and not men.
That each and every State Constitution has God in it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2011)

Documents are NOT LAW. 
Where is God mentioned in THE LAW.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.



They won't. They ignore facts and believe God wrote the Constitution.


----------



## peach174 (Jun 18, 2011)

3 Christian laws come to mind
Polygamy is one Christian law
Another is you can't by alcohol on Sunday in some states.
Gay marriage is another.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2011)

peach174 said:


> 3 Christian laws come to mind
> Polygamy is one Christian law
> Another is you can't by alcohol on Sunday in some states.
> Gay marriage is another.



Thanks for proving my point.
George Washington was the largest retailer of whiskey in the colonies.
Most of the Founders owned breweries or made their own brew.
And he sold and transported it EVERY Sunday.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

No, that's not correct.  They are not religious laws, they are secular laws.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Documents are NOT LAW.
> Where is God mentioned in THE LAW.


 
Who decided that foundation = law?


----------



## peach174 (Jun 18, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> > If there is anything that can be gleaned from the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is that our nation was founded on secular principles and not religious doctrine. The founding fathers well knew that the separation of church and state was the only way to preserve religious freedom. Religious wars had been waged in Europe over its union; and, indeed, some of the first colonists, the Pilgrims, came to America to escape state-sponsored religious persecution. Our right to worship freely, without government interference, is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and not by God. It is time that people of faith reconcile themselves with this fundamental fact.
> ...



Men wrote the Consitution, who prayed to God to help them write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

And we return to stage one.

I guess all the founding fathers who said they were founding the nation upon Christian principle, and the supreme court, which stated that the country was founded upon Christian principle, along with Abraham Lincoln and Obama, who both stated we were founded upon Christian principle...all those people were WRONG and we must just take the word of internet geniuses like gadawg, bod and nemo.

You bet.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence - George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention - and James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment - all declared that our nation was not founded on religion. The separation of church and state is the founding principle in the protection of religious freedom as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and, moreover, the Supreme Court has so interpreted the Constitution. _Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al._, 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I didn't say our country was founded upon religion. It certainly isn't.

It has to be an organic disorder that prevents the anti-Christian statists from recognizing there's a difference between founding/law..and which further prevents them from recognizing that a country can (and has been)founded upon Christian principle...without the country being a theocracy.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 18, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> I didn't say our country was founded upon religion. It certainly isn't.
> 
> It has to be an organic disorder that prevents the anti-Christian statists from recognizing there's a difference between founding/law..and which further prevents them from recognizing that a country can (and has been)founded upon Christian principle...without the country being a theocracy.



I see you're still fighting the fight here. Waste of time. They don't see what they don't want to see.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

There is no valid authority for the assertion that on nation was founded on Christian principles.  It is insupportable. The framers of the Constitution, did not intend to create a theocracy.  They had exactly the opposite in mind.  To preserve religious freedom, the government and law had to be secular, and not based on religious precepts.  This is the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state upon which our religious freedom is secured.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Nobody, NOBODY, said their intent was to found a theocracy, nimrodo....we've already proven, with the words of the founding fathers, the supreme court, and presidents down through the ages, that the US was, indisputably, founded UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

It has been proven beyond a doubt, or that idiot, gadawg, would still be proclaiming that it wasn't, instead of saying "ok, ok, we all know that we were founded upon some Christian principles...BUT". The evidence is so overwhelming even that brain dead dolt can no longer continue to claim the opposite without recognizing himself as a fool.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

What Supreme Court decision?  Do you have a citation?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> There is no valid authority for the assertion that on nation was founded on Christian principles.  It is insupportable. The framers of the Constitution, did not intend to create a theocracy.  They had exactly the opposite in mind.  To preserve religious freedom, the government and law had to be secular, and not based on religious precepts.  This is the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state upon which our religious freedom is secured.



Really? 9 thousand pages into this thread and you can't grok the difference between a nation being founded on Christian principles and a theocracy?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> What Supreme Court decision? Do you have a citation?


 
It's been cited multiple times in this thread.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

Well, where is it?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I'm not going to look up and cite it again, so that I can be dragged into the same argument that has been going on in this thread since the BEGINNING OF TIME, but i did run across an interesting site that has a lot of quotes of the justices...I've never seen this site before I don't think, and found it fascinating:

U.S. Supreme Court

"*Judge Gallagher* 
_Baer v. Kolmorgen 
The Supreme Court of New York_ 1958 
"Much has been written in recent years...to "a wall of separation between church and State." ...It has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution."


----------



## ConHog (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> Well, where is it?



CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U. S. 457 (1892)

CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U. S. 457 :: Volume 143 :: 1892 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

At THIS point a sane person would conclude that //thread

I suspect it will go on.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

I found the case.  _Holy Trinity Church_ is not a valid precedent; and it is certainly not any authority for the assertion that our nation is founded on Christian principles. The decision of _Holy Trinity Church v. United States_ has been used by Christian fundamentalists to support their claim that our nation was founded on religion. The decision is an aberration of the rules of construction and judicial interpretation. The unsupported statement of Justice Brewer to the effect that America is a Christian nation was not in any way pertinent to the courts ruling or even be considered the _ratio decidendi_ of the courts opinion in the case; and it has been criticized and repudiated in subsequent decisions by the court. See e.g., _Public Citizen v. Department of Justice_, 491 U.S. 440 (1989). Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not shy about reconciling his legal opinions with his religious convictions, has criticized the _Holy Trinity Church_ case as an example of legislating from the bench. Antonin Scalia, _A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law_  (1998).  It is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.


----------



## ConHog (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> I found the case.  _Holy Trinity Church_ is not a valid precedent; and it is certainly not any authority for the assertion that our nation is founded on Christian principles. The decision of _Holy Trinity Church v. United States_ has been used by Christian fundamentalists to support their claim that our nation was founded on religion. The decision is an aberration of the rules of construction and judicial interpretation. The unsupported statement of Justice Brewer to the effect that America is a Christian nation was not in any way pertinent to the courts ruling or even be considered the _ratio decidendi_ of the courts opinion in the case; and it has been criticized and repudiated in subsequent decisions by the court. See e.g., _Public Citizen v. Department of Justice_, 491 U.S. 440 (1989). Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not shy about reconciling his legal opinions with his religious convictions, has criticized the Holy Trinity Church case as an example of legislating from the bench. Antonin Scalia, _A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law_  (1998).  It is a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.





Got it, you're an idiot who discredits evidence that doesn't fit his preconceived beliefs instead of allowing the evidence to create his beliefs. I would say that the early Court had a FAR better idea of what principles our nation were founded on than do today's lawyers.

I'll just put you on ignore with the rest of the idiots who aren't here for honest debate and go on with my day.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Now discredit this one as well:

"*Justice William Rehnquist* 
_Wallace v. Jafree_ 1985 
"It is impossible to build sound consitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history... The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers."


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Now please discredit this:

"*Justice William Rehnquist* 
"But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights... The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned."


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

"
The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only... impious, but... is a gross violation of decency and good order.
Nothing could be more injurious to the tender morals of the young, then to declare such profanity lawful...
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and descent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right...
We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines of worship of those impostors [other religions]..."
*&#8212;U.S. Supreme Court, 1811&#8212;* 
_The People v. Ruggles 
Justice James Kent delivered the Court's opinion_

U.S. Supreme Court


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

That is also not valid precedent for the same reasons stated, supra.  The controlling precedent is _Everson v. Board of Education_, in which the Supreme Court, citing _Watson v. Jones_ and _Reynolds v. United States_, ruled:

"The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, quoted with approval by this Court, in _Watson v. Jones_, 13 Wall. 679, 730: *'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority*.' (highlighted emphaisis added)

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' _Reynolds v. United States_, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." [footnotes omitted] _Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. et al._, 330 U.S. 1, pp. 15,16 (1947).


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Pardon me if I  take the ramblings of someone who doesn't understand the difference between whether or not a country is founded upon Christian PRINCIPLE, and whether or not a country is a theocracy, with more than a grain of salt.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 18, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Nobody, NOBODY, said their intent was to found a theocracy, nimrodo....we've already proven, with the words of the founding fathers, the supreme court, and presidents down through the ages, that the US was, indisputably, founded UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.
> 
> It has been proven beyond a doubt, or that idiot, gadawg, would still be proclaiming that it wasn't, instead of saying "ok, ok, we all know that we were founded upon some Christian principles...BUT". The evidence is so overwhelming even that brain dead dolt can no longer continue to claim the opposite without recognizing himself as a fool.


Do show us that proof.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody, NOBODY, said their intent was to found a theocracy, nimrodo....we've already proven, with the words of the founding fathers, the supreme court, and presidents down through the ages, that the US was, indisputably, founded UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.
> ...


 
Read the thread, do.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

You can't quote statements out of context to prove your point. Such statements are inapposite - they are not relevant - they are not admissible.

One thing that I can determine from our brief discussion is that you are not a lawyer.

One thing that I would like to know is whether you are a Christian. I don't think you are.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

And back to ad hominem.

Let's hear it for logical fallacy!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I've already provided counterpoints to every argument you could ever possibly make, including the imbecilic "the us is not a theocracy". 

 I suggest you  study the material you are debating before you apply condescension. You'll find we're aren't ignorant yahoos, and in fact, for you or anyone to make this point against us (i.e., that the US is not founded upon Christian principle) you will have to fly in the face of facts, supported by considerable documentation down through the centuries. 

As a matter of fact, in arguing that the US is not founded upon Christian principle, you are arguing that all the founding fathers, the supreme court, presidents Obama and Lincoln (just to name 2), and all sane historians (and possibly all historians, period) were liars or just didn't know what they were saying. If you want to assume an arrogant demeanor and randomly spout vapisms like "Jefferson wasn't really a Christian" or "Christianity is BAD" or "Free will is a universal concept that isn't confined to Christianity" please feel free. Understand that those opinions mean nothing to this argument, and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was founded upon Christianity. Which, of course, it was. Comfort yourself in the knowledge you aren't any different from the crowd that came before. 
__________________


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

So you are not really a Christian?  Why are you posting on this site?


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

I think I know why you post on this forum.  You are being paid to post propaganda.  You are no Christian - you are a propagandist. Query: How much are you being paid to post here?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

What the hell are you going on about?

More ad hominem, btw. More logical fallacy. Like I said, it's nothing new.


----------



## Obamerican (Jun 18, 2011)

Nemo said:


> I think I know why you post on this forum.  You are being paid to post propaganda.  You are no Christian - you are a propagandist. Query: How much are you being paid to post here?


If someone disagrees with you you think they are being paid to do it?????


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I'm baffled by his apparent belief that one has to be a Christian to post here.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 18, 2011)

You are a propagandist.  I won't waste any more time with you.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

I have to say, that's kind of original. I've had leftards bail for a variety of reasons in this thread when they realize how stupid they look..., but never on the pretext that I'm a propagandist.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 18, 2011)

Who is paying me? Cuz they're late with the check..


----------



## peach174 (Jun 19, 2011)

Nemo heard from somewhere that the left are doing this in political forums and blogs, so he automatically assumes that religious people are doing the same thing.
Just because the left are maybe doing it, the right must be too.
And he falsely assumes that all Conservatives are religious and are righties.
It's pretty sad how the left think. All little programed socialists.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 7, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Which God were they referring to in all of their writings ?



Same God as in the Bible, but referred to as Nature's God
ie natural laws of man (also given by God as inalienable rights by design
of human nature) which is the Gentile path, the separate fold of the same flock
as followers of the divine laws, both governed under the same
authority of Jesus or Justice and universal Truth or God's truth.

Same God, author of universal laws of human nature, but expressed in secular gentile language as civil laws of democratic government based on natural rights of man
(recognized as created and given by the one God).

So the relationship, the spirit of the laws is still "Christian" by our connection with God by conscience in Christ; but the laws themselves are addressed to secular Gentiles
so this is to be distinguished from the divine laws governing the church body.

The same body of people are under BOTH laws by the way:
the PEOPLE make up the church body
the PEOPLE make up the government
but the two sets of laws operate in separate jurisdiction.

Ideally the civil and sacred laws are meant to be in harmony, without any
conflict since these are both given by God, the same God.
But where there are conflicts (due to political biases and interests
of man and privatized groups), if these conflicts are not resolved then this
leads to political competition to put church or state authority above the other,
instead of resovling the conflict so NEITHER is imposed upon the other!

The First Amendment calls for us/the government
NEITHER to establish a religion NOR to prohibit free exercise thereof;
therefore there should be consensus on law, based on
consent of the governed, so there is no risk of either
prohibiting or imposing a religious bias on law that
violates consent of the governed citizens.

http://www.houstonprogressive.org


----------



## Lokiate (Aug 7, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...


Entirely irrelevant. That was then, this is now.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 7, 2011)

Lokiate said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity*
> ...



So...NOW...we are based on Christianity?


----------



## UnityEarth (Aug 26, 2011)

(I apologize if this point was made in the intervening 200+ pages.....)


It seems that all of this quote mining is perfectly illustrating the point of it all, but I couldn't find anyone putting it together.....

It's the same cycle, over and over.  In -Private- our leaders speak their minds of what they see as the full reality of the situation.  When it comes time to Address the Populace as a whole, suddenly they begin to pander to Christianity anyway.

Wikipedia: List_of_Christian_denominations  (I can't post real links yet! )

How many of these churches believe their specific interpretation of the Bible to be the only path to Salvation?  Ultimately, regardless of whether or not our Founding Fathers' belief in a 'God', and their belief in certain philosophical principles overlapped to the point that we could truly call them 'Christian', they seemed to hold one certain concept in very high regard:

*That it does not matter how you perceive the Wholeness of Existence, what face you put to it, what you call it, how you Observe and/or Worship that - as long as you hold Reverence for this World, that you should be Free to do so as you see fit.*

You cannot believe in Liberty, and simultaneously believe in a State Religion.  Regardless of which vision of God we choose to legislate, we will be gravely restricting the Freedoms of the People upon which this great nation is carried.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 26, 2011)

The Majority  were Christians.
In 1776, 98% of the population was Protestant Christian, 1.8% Catholic Christian, and .2 of 1% Jewish. That means that 99.8% of the people in America in 1776 professed to be Christians.
And they wanted freedom for all religions and all who did not believe.


----------

