The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[TheBrain]

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.

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]

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.

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.

God was mentioned throughout all of the papers. Who do you think Divine Providence ,the creator and Providence was? God that is who.

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]

Stupidity incarnate.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

Which is exactly hat we've been arguing for last 20 pages or so. But some don't even want to admit that.

 

[bodecea]

No I came back to comment on you fighting a losing battle.

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.



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?

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.

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]

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.

God was mentioned throughout all of the papers. Who do you think Divine Providence ,the creator and Providence was? God that is who.

Peach....if they wanted to refer to the Christian god and christ...why didn't they say so?


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.



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?

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]

Stupidity incarnate.

You don't have to sign your posts, Allie.

 

[peach174]

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]

God was mentioned throughout all of the papers. Who do you think Divine Providence ,the creator and Providence was? God that is who.

Peach....if they wanted to refer to the Christian god and christ...why didn't they say so?


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.



That's nice...but how was christianity incorporated into the structure of our country if it was all important?


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?

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.

That's nice. Is this a punctuation lesson now? Was that in Punctuation 3004 or 3005?

 

[bodecea]

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]

God was mentioned throughout all of the papers. Who do you think Divine Providence ,the creator and Providence was? God that is who.

Peach....if they wanted to refer to the Christian god and christ...why didn't they say so?


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.



That's nice...but how was christianity incorporated into the structure of our country if it was all important?


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?

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.

Allah means God. God is also used as a first name thats why it is capitalized.

 

[JBeukema]

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]

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]

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]

The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution

“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.”
[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’s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, 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 . . .

“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 . . .

“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.)

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. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [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):

“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.” (emphasis mine.)

Perhaps this will help you to see what the majority here are saying.

 

[JBeukema]

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]

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.

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]

Peach....if they wanted to refer to the Christian god and christ...why didn't they say so?


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.



That's nice...but how was christianity incorporated into the structure of our country if it was all important?


That's nice but as President of the Constitutional Convention, how did he incorporate that belief in divine miracles into the Constitution?



ONLY the christian god was "divine providence", Peach?

So...assuming what you say is true....where does that leave the non-christians?

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.

That's nice. Is this a punctuation lesson now? Was that in Punctuation 3004 or 3005?

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]

The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution

“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.”
[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’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:

“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 . . .

very pagan....'Nature's God'.

“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'.

“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.)

"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, “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.” [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):

“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.” (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]

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.