The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[AllieBaba]

I never have a straight face when I'm addressing you.

 

[bodecea]

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]

Why? I'm not interested in that subject.

 

[bodecea]

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]

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]

Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?

TRANSLATION: “Daggonnit. I’ve just been caught in my own trap.”

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?

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?

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.)

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.

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”

Founders sure were smart, weren't they?

Indeed.

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....

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]

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]

You never know.

 

[AllieBaba]

Trust me on this one. Wade through this thread alone for reams of evidence of their willful stupidity.

 

[TheBrain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

speaking of exactly the same piece of shit...

 

[Gadawg73]

Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?

TRANSLATION: “Daggonnit. I’ve just been caught in my own trap.”

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?



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?



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.)



Really? You mean the Founders didn’t want another Church-State? I’m shocked.



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”



Indeed.

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....

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?

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]

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.

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)

I've already stated that I am not part of your stupid attempt to deflect Allie.

Since I'm back again?? Back where?

 

[AllieBaba]

Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?

TRANSLATION: “Daggonnit. I’ve just been caught in my own trap.”



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?



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?



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.)



Really? You mean the Founders didn’t want another Church-State? I’m shocked.



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”



Indeed.



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....

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?

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.

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]

TRANSLATION: “Daggonnit. I’ve just been caught in my own trap.”



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?



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?



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.)



Really? You mean the Founders didn’t want another Church-State? I’m shocked.



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”



Indeed.



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....



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?

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.

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.

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]

Where is there a United States of Jews? What is their Constitution?

TRANSLATION: “Daggonnit. I’ve just been caught in my own trap.”



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?



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?



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.)



Really? You mean the Founders didn’t want another Church-State? I’m shocked.



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”



Indeed.



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....

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?

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.

In other words: Actions speak louder than words......something that apparently Allie is in full avoidance mode over.