The rediculousness of assumption that founders were not Christian

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Fine.

I am still waiting to see what you say then about the entire The Memorial and Remonstrance (June 20, 1785) and the reference to the "Holy Trinity" in the Paris treaty.

You still have not adressed those.

For all of your thoughts on my making up fictional points, adress the text.

As to the memorial and remonstrance, I see that its addressed to the commonwealth of virginia. I've not read the entire treaty of paris, just the small blurb you have posted. I'll get back to you on that.

My point is that while the documents for virginia state the tenants of 'christianity' the terms were not carried over to the national documents for the reasons that RWA stated. Again, I've not disagreed with you in that some of the founders were christians nor that some of the paragraphs may be referring to christianity, but that the founders, being of mixed religious backgrounds, purposefully left christianity out of nationalization for the express purpose of avoiding the very crux of our debate....that we are or are not a christian nation. It was recognized that religious fanaticism was the downfall of many societies and its one they wanted to avoid for this one.

P. S.

I'm glad to see you back here, truly.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
As to the memorial and remonstrance, I see that its addressed to the commonwealth of virginia. I've not read the entire treaty of paris, just the small blurb you have posted. I'll get back to you on that.

The Memorial and remonstrance, no matter who it was adressed to, was written by who? -Madison. He signed a few documents. His point was that mandated practice of religion is bad. He states that our nation was founded upon the spirit of Christian ethics....it is right there in print in the document.

My point is that while the documents for virginia state the tenants of 'christianity' the terms were not carried over to the national documents for the reasons that RWA stated. Again, I've not disagreed with you in that some of the founders were christians nor that some of the paragraphs may be referring to christianity, but that the founders, being of mixed religious backgrounds, purposefully left christianity out of nationalization for the express purpose of avoiding the very crux of our debate....that we are or are not a christian nation.

You obviously define things in a vague way. Our nation needed rules. The idea of how to determine right and wrong came straight from the Bible. The fact of these documents declaring founders with Biblical beliefs all over the place, and stating that law must follow those ETHICS means one simple defined point: WE BUILT THE NATION ON CHRISTIAN MORALS AND ETHICS. THEY CAME FROM THE BIBLE.

This was clearly stated by me, these documents, and was a response to another poster. If you define "founded" differently, as it appears you do, you need to state that. My wording is quite clear and backed up by documents.

Your point that some founders were NOT Christian is moot for 2 reasons:

1. By number, they were not the majority
2. Even non-Christians normally observed Christian ethics and morals by traditional behavior as the law required where they came from. In addition, one need not be a Christian in order to see such law is the most fair and free possible. This what they used before, and they set it up as they already followed it.

Keep in mind that the basis for legal development was based off of the following premise as a result:

1. Do all that you agree to do
2. Do not encroach upon the rights of others.

This law was Biblical in that these are the 2 concepts broken down as simply as possible without reference to worship. In other words, by taking God out, you get these two laws. Done why? -To not MANDATE A RELIGION.

Where did it come from?

THE BIBLE.

Based in the Bible, not mandating specific religious worship.

It was recognized that religious fanaticism was the downfall of many societies and its one they wanted to avoid for this one.

Agreed.

I'm glad to see you back here, truly.

Stick to the topic.

 

[HGROKIT]

...adopted and used.

The Law of Jubilation is still the rule today. Debts forgiven every seven years; Bankruptcy laws dictate that BK's can only be filed every seven years.

Most statute of limitations are either 3 or 7 years - both taken from the bible...goes on and on. This country was founded in christian belief, but no necessaruliy christian mandates or mandated.

 

[acludem]

I marvel that some of you still cling to the misguided belief that this country was "founded on Christian belief." You are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny.

First off, not all of the founders of our country were Christians. Many, including Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin called themselves Christians but in practice and belief were Deists. Others such as Washington, Hancock, and Pinckney weren't especially religious. John Adams was very religious, but also firmly believed in Separation of church and state as well as religious freedom.

The other problem with your argument is that you seem to think that the basic ideas you call "Christian belief" are indigenous only to the bible. Not stealing, killing, etc. go back well before biblical times. These are basic tenemants found in nearly every human society, Christian or not, including in the Code of Hammurabi, Roman and Greek Law, and Ancient Egyptian law.

Many of the founders of our country were Christian, there is no doubt of this. I would submit, however, that when the document they constructed for the governance of our country has NO reference to religion other than to specifically ban the government from granting official recognition to one or another, should speak volumes. They clearly intended for our government to be ENTIRELY secular.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I marvel that some of you still cling to the misguided belief that this country was "founded on Christian belief." You are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny.

Given the documents posted, anything beyond this point in your post straddles the fence between blind stupidity, and blatant untruthful propaganda. Since you obviously do not read the docs either, your post is officially ignored.

 

[acludem]

Okay, let's look at the documents. THe Declaration of Independence IS NOT a government or governing document. Instead it was a brilliantly written piece of propaganda. The treaty of Paris also was written as propaganda to gain support for it amongst the people of the U.S. You have to understand that these documents were often printed in newspapers and in order to prevent rioting they had to be written a certain way. The Declaration of Arms is yet more propaganda written to inflame what was then a largely, but not entirely, Christian populace. The memorial and remonstrance was a bill that FAILED in the Virginia Assembly because of the able opposition of none other than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, so this is completely irrelevant.

You attempt to twist the word "blessing" as if it is only a religious reference. It isn't. The "blessings of liberty" are the good things we have because we live in a free country. If you look up the word "blessings" in a dictionary you will find several definitions. From the American Heritage Dictionary they are as follows: 1. The act of one that blesses. 2. A short prayer said before or after a meal 3. Something promoting or contributing to happiness, well-being, or prosperity: a boon 4. Approbation or approval: This plan has my blessing" Clearly you are trying to add meaning that wasn't intended and isn't there.

There you are, you still can't prove that the founders of our country intended it to be based upon "Christian ideas"

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Thanks! I was waiting for evidence you still wouldn't read, but merely post how unAmerican and what a lying socialist and domestic threat to liberty you are.

You have just done that. I will quote you so you cannot change it:

Originally posted by acludem
Okay, let's look at the documents. THe Declaration of Independence IS NOT a government or governing document. Instead it was a brilliantly written piece of propaganda. The treaty of Paris also was written as propaganda to gain support for it amongst the people of the U.S. You have to understand that these documents were often printed in newspapers and in order to prevent rioting they had to be written a certain way. The Declaration of Arms is yet more propaganda written to inflame what was then a largely, but not entirely, Christian populace. The memorial and remonstrance was a bill that FAILED in the Virginia Assembly because of the able opposition of none other than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, so this is completely irrelevant.

You attempt to twist the word "blessing" as if it is only a religious reference. It isn't. The "blessings of liberty" are the good things we have because we live in a free country. If you look up the word "blessings" in a dictionary you will find several definitions. From the American Heritage Dictionary they are as follows: 1. The act of one that blesses. 2. A short prayer said before or after a meal 3. Something promoting or contributing to happiness, well-being, or prosperity: a boon 4. Approbation or approval: This plan has my blessing" Clearly you are trying to add meaning that wasn't intended and isn't there.

There you are, you still can't prove that the founders of our country intended it to be based upon "Christian ideas"

acludem

The cool part is you just called our founding documents propaganda.

You are an idiot.

Every time I have said so has just been vindicated.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by acludem
I marvel that some of you still cling to the misguided belief that this country was "founded on Christian belief." You are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny.

First off, not all of the founders of our country were Christians. Many, including Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin called themselves Christians but in practice and belief were Deists. Others such as Washington, Hancock, and Pinckney weren't especially religious. John Adams was very religious, but also firmly believed in Separation of church and state as well as religious freedom.

The other problem with your argument is that you seem to think that the basic ideas you call "Christian belief" are indigenous only to the bible. Not stealing, killing, etc. go back well before biblical times. These are basic tenemants found in nearly every human society, Christian or not, including in the Code of Hammurabi, Roman and Greek Law, and Ancient Egyptian law.

Many of the founders of our country were Christian, there is no doubt of this. I would submit, however, that when the document they constructed for the governance of our country has NO reference to religion other than to specifically ban the government from granting official recognition to one or another, should speak volumes. They clearly intended for our government to be ENTIRELY secular.

acludem

Did you just jump right on in here without reading the reat of the thread? I do not mean this in a flip way, just that your argument has already been made.

As to the other codes/laws - I will stipulate as to the Code of Hammurabi being ANOTHER major source of inspriation. As for Greek and Roman - I beg to differ. the Code of Hammurabi was the first recorded law in human history (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM and http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hammurabi.html) and as such, logic would dicatate that all laws wold have derived at least some guidance and isnpiration from this.

 

[acludem]

I did say, and I maintain that many of the documents used to support the movement for independence were propaganda. That isn't to diminish their importance, their eloquence, or their place in our history. It is to place the words in the correct historical context.

I have made many of these same arguments in several threads similar to this. Greek and Roman law built upon the foundation of the Code of Hammurabi. The first Republic was in Rome, well before the bible was written, clearly the founders were inspired somewhat by that. The philosophy of the original political scientist, Plato was also influential. The list goes on and on.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
The first Republic was in Rome, well before the bible was written,

acludem

Cool.

Now you have no idea how the timeline of history works either.


The Bible was started well before Rome.

They don't teach you that at Hammer and Sickle University.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by acludem
I did say, and I maintain that many of the documents used to support the movement for independence were propaganda. That isn't to diminish their importance, their eloquence, or their place in our history. It is to place the words in the correct historical context.

I have made many of these same arguments in several threads similar to this. Greek and Roman law built upon the foundation of the Code of Hammurabi. The first Republic was in Rome, well before the bible was written, clearly the founders were inspired somewhat by that. The philosophy of the original political scientist, Plato was also influential. The list goes on and on.

acludem

I am confused. Are you responding to my post? If so you have added nothing new. In fact, you have added nothing new to this thread - so if I may, what is your point?

 

[ajwps]

Thanks for inviting little ole me to your new thread GopJeff...

Ignoring this nation's founding fathers views that this was a country based on liberty and freedom for all and that no official state religion was to be established, there actually was a Supreme Court case to rule whether the United States was or not a Christian country in 1892. The accompanying article should be an interesting read for all.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/amr/camer.htm

Christian America advocates want us to believe that Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer declared this a Christian nation over 100 years ago. And on its face, this appears to be the case -- Supreme Court decision, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S., 457, 471, (1892) -- "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind (the Lord Jesus Christ). 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 Christian 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 recognition of the same truth ... 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."

But Justice Brewer later wrote a 98-page booklet explaining his views in greater detail. He wrote: "But in what sense can (the United States) be called a Christian nation?" asked Brewer. "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." Continues Brewer, "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."

And when referring to a New York supreme court case he wrote: "Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people." This means beyond question, Brewer said that there was to be NO official legal Christian State Church established by law.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If the founders wanted it, they'd have done it. Let's not guess their intentions, let's go with what they actually wrote. They put in an establishment of religion clause.

"congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" case closed. Regardless of other irrelevant yet interesting documents.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
If the founders wanted it, they'd have done it. Let's not guess their intentions, let's go with what they actually wrote. They put in an establishment of religion clause.

"congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" case closed. Regardless of other irrelevant yet interesting documents.

:clap1:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
:clap1:

Yes. It's true brownie w/nuts, there are wackos on all sides.!

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
If the founders wanted it, they'd have done it. Let's not guess their intentions, let's go with what they actually wrote. They put in an establishment of religion clause.

"congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" case closed. Regardless of other irrelevant yet interesting documents.

Yeah, but it's the " or prohibiting the free excercise thereof " part that the ACLU and their ilk seem to have trouble with.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by musicman
Yeah, but it's the " or prohibiting the free excercise thereof " part that the ACLU and their ilk seem to have trouble with.

Yes. Those commies at the aclu really cheeze me off.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by musicman
Yeah, but it's the " or prohibiting the free excercise thereof " part that the ACLU and their ilk seem to have trouble with.

The ACLU are truly morons.

But I don't see anybody 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' in people's homes, churches, synagogues, mosques, or anywhere in the United States except with that 'free exercise thereof' is done in Federal institutions or sites where the 'official church religion of the land' is preached or demonstrated' in an effort to indoctrinate small children who do not understand the subtle differences between their own religions and those being proudly being preached or shown as the only true one.

Kids can be taught freedom of religion and the right to practice it by their parents and by their churches and in their own private meetings. But when a three or four year old child is made to pray to someone else's god or be ostricised because they do not follow the pack, then this is WRONG.

That is the difference.....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
The ACLU are truly morons.

But I don't see anybody 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof' in people's homes, churches, synagogues, mosques, or anywhere in the United States except with that 'free exercise thereof' is done in Federal institutions or sites where the 'official church religion of the land' is preached or demonstrated' in an effort to indoctrinate small children who do not understand the subtle differences between their own religions and those being proudly being preached or shown as the only true one.

Kids can be taught freedom of religion and the right to practice it by their parents and by their churches and in their own private meetings. But when a three or four year old child is made to pray to someone else's god or be ostricised because they do not follow the pack, then this is WRONG.

That is the difference.....

Do you think a nativity scene in a public area is something we shouldn't do?

 

[dilloduck]

If I choose to be a worshipper of the God of Wood, should federal buildings be demolished and rebuilt with something that I am not offended by? We Wood God worshippers are just really irked by stone.