The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[AllieBaba]

Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another example of the extreme ignorance of the anti-American, anti-Christian crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.

Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.

Despite the fact that every historian and US history expert confirms it.

If Thomas Jefferson and all the other FF were to pile into a hummer, come to her house, and tell her personally that they had founded the country on Chrsitian tenets, she would still deny it.

Because she doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. Her truth is relative and completely subjective. It means nothing to her.

Normally you and I are on the same page, but I gently disagree here Allie. There are those who so desperately want to believe they are right, that they close off any truth that interferes with that. It isn't an intentional thing. They just aren't yet strong enough to 'handle the truth' as Colonel Jessup might say. And some, including myself, hold opinions strongly enough that it requires a lot of evidence to shake our faith in our own convictions.

I don't believe Bodecea doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. She(?) is usually 180 degrees opposite my position on most sociopolitical issues, but I doubt is any more stubborn than I am, or you are for that matter , in giving up something believed to be true.

To me, however, being a grown up is being willing to at least look at evidence presented by others before dismissing it out of hand. And it is also not embracing every new talking point or ideological perspective that crops up on any given day.

It's still dishonesty, however. Whatever her motivations. Assholes always have the best motivation to be assholes, and so do liars. I understand WHY people do it...but it's still lying and dishonest.

And I'd give her the benefit of the doubt...except she lies about little things, as well. For example, she will deny that she said something that is attributed to her....and when her actual quote is provided, she'll completely ignore it.

That's not just wanting to be right. That's fucking lying. A person who does that is not just being naive when they fudge...they are lying. The two things that she won't respond to is FACT and TRUTH. She'll pick apart a sentence until the end of time...she'll race around the board posting the same lie over and over and over, but when faced with fact she's completely silent and changes the subject.

That's just plain dishonesty.

 

[bodecea]

Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.

If you have to lie to make your point, Allie....your point is rather weak. I have never ever said the Dec of Ind isn't a founding document. HOWEVER, that being said....it is NOT a basis for our government structure. It was a declaration...an announcement that we were separating from our mother country. Similar in a way to divorce papers. But our U.S. of A.'s government is not based on it. In fact, if you were to actually read the Dec of Ind, there's nothing there on how to set up our government...that was left to the Articles of Confederation...and when those failed, the Constitution.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Laugh indeed.

Another example of the extreme ignorance of the anti-American, anti-Christian crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.

Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.

Despite the fact that every historian and US history expert confirms it.

If Thomas Jefferson and all the other FF were to pile into a hummer, come to her house, and tell her personally that they had founded the country on Chrsitian tenets, she would still deny it.

Because she doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. Her truth is relative and completely subjective. It means nothing to her.

On what unsubjective basis do you have the right to call me unAmerican and anti-Christian? Because I don't agree with YOU????

 

[bodecea]

Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another example of the extreme ignorance of the anti-American, anti-Christian crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.

Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.

Despite the fact that every historian and US history expert confirms it.

If Thomas Jefferson and all the other FF were to pile into a hummer, come to her house, and tell her personally that they had founded the country on Chrsitian tenets, she would still deny it.

Because she doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. Her truth is relative and completely subjective. It means nothing to her.

I do want to revisit this comment from Allie again. Whether she meant to or not, she proved that our Founders were very wise in making sure our Country was not founded in such a way as Allie wants to think it was. Can you imagine what life would be like if people like Allie were in power here and the laws were such that she could determine one's patriotism to our country based on her perception of whether one was a good enough Christian or not....that being based on whether you agreed with her as to the power of christianity within our government? We'd be right back to what the Europeans struggled with for centuries.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. I don't see Allie as Bodecea sees her any more than I see Bodecea as Allie sees her. I see that you dislike and distrust each other which generally makes any kind of useful dialogue pretty difficult.

And I accept that you are both being honest in how you see the other.

It is illustrative of the point I was attempting to make but probably didn't make very well. The fact that we defend our point of view is not what makes us dishonest. Only defending a point of view once it can be seen as indefensible in light of existing facts and evidence would make a person dishonest.

 

[bodecea]

Bod refuses to acknowledge that the Declaration is a founding document.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another example of the extreme ignorance of the anti-American, anti-Christian crowd. No amount of evidence will convince her otherwise; just like no amount of evidence will ever convince her that the country was founded upon Christian principle.

Despite the fact the founding fathers, the courts, and presidents since the birth of the nation have shouted it to the skies.

Despite the fact that every historian and US history expert confirms it.

If Thomas Jefferson and all the other FF were to pile into a hummer, come to her house, and tell her personally that they had founded the country on Chrsitian tenets, she would still deny it.

Because she doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. Her truth is relative and completely subjective. It means nothing to her.

Normally you and I are on the same page, but I gently disagree here Allie. There are those who so desperately want to believe they are right, that they close off any truth that interferes with that. It isn't an intentional thing. They just aren't yet strong enough to 'handle the truth' as Colonel Jessup might say. And some, including myself, hold opinions strongly enough that it requires a lot of evidence to shake our faith in our own convictions.

I don't believe Bodecea doesn't care about truth, fact, or anything else. She(?) is usually 180 degrees opposite my position on most sociopolitical issues, but I doubt is any more stubborn than I am, or you are for that matter , in giving up something believed to be true.

To me, however, being a grown up is being willing to at least look at evidence presented by others before dismissing it out of hand. And it is also not embracing every new talking point or ideological perspective that crops up on any given day.

It's still dishonesty, however. Whatever her motivations. Assholes always have the best motivation to be assholes, and so do liars. I understand WHY people do it...but it's still lying and dishonest.

And I'd give her the benefit of the doubt...except she lies about little things, as well. For example, she will deny that she said something that is attributed to her....and when her actual quote is provided, she'll completely ignore it.
That's not just wanting to be right. That's fucking lying. A person who does that is not just being naive when they fudge...they are lying. The two things that she won't respond to is FACT and TRUTH. She'll pick apart a sentence until the end of time...she'll race around the board posting the same lie over and over and over, but when faced with fact she's completely silent and changes the subject.

That's just plain dishonesty.

Such as? And lets not play that little game you play where you dodge proving your accusation by saying "oh, I've already proved it again and again"

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh. I wonder if it would be noticed by anybody if I started a thread on how NOT to derail a thread?

 

[bodecea]

Sigh. I wonder if it would be noticed by anybody if I started a thread on how NOT to derail a thread?

I'm trying to stay on the OP topic, Foxfyre....I really am.

I agree with the OP, btw....because I've not seen evidence to the contrary that our country's tenets, principles, what have you can be traces to Christianity principles.

 

[peach174]

I agree with you...except I am puzzled by what I highlited....

What exactly is that Christian concept the USA is based on...the concept of natural/unalienable rights is not traced to Christianity.

It arose out of the Christian convictions of the Founders who gave God and, in many cases, the Christ as the source of the concept. They were not the first to think it up, but they were the first to make it a foundation for a new structure of government that had never been tried before in the history of the world.

For an excelent history I recommend Defending the Declaration by Gary T. Amos.

He did some excellent scholarly research to show how a concept of 'unalienable rights of men' were identified and developed by medieval Christian scholars over a period of centuries. Chapter 4 entitled "Unalienable Rights Endowed by the Creator' is especially good to illustrate why the concept has been embraced not only by Americans but by defenders of liberty everywhere.

I fail to see what is christian about the concept of unalienable rights...it's clear a concept that came out of the Enlightenment, that all people are born (whether they believe in a creator or not) with three basic human rights...the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property...and that social contracts are created among people to protect those rights. There's nothing enherently 'christian' about that concept.....unless there's something I'm missing here.

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

 

[freedombecki]

Anyone that believes that is beyond stupid.
Do you have any proof of your absurd claims?
Don't they teach history in the schools where you live?
Congress is modeled after the Romans and Greeks.
I am sure now you folks will claim the Greeks and Romans were also founded on Christian principles.

<<<<Gong!>>>> You're wrong.

If you are a Christian as you claim, doesn't your particular church have a library that discusses Christian influence in colonial times.

Pity you don't go there.

I took religion in a private military school in the 60s.
No one disputes Christian influences in our society.
The society was majority Christian, the founders were primarily Christian and Christianity is a good thing.
That does not translate in OUR GOVERNMENT being founded on religion.
Your claim that John Witherspoon modeled the Congress after his church is absurd.
He never made that claim so how could that be true? Witherspoon was instrumental in formulating James Madison's strong position to NOT have religion intermingled with government. Madison was one ofmany students he had. Witherspoon instructed almost 100 future politicians and judges in our founded country and you claim his influences put religion into our government?
Well, where is God mentioned ANYWHERE in the laws that this nation was founded on and Witherspoon had a hand in writing?
NO WHERE. Try again.
You sir are the one that does not know your history. I learned it before you were born.

So you were getting much-needed discipline when I was raising my children according to the scriptures?

And what you said I said is not at all what I said.

However, I promise you I will vote for you if you ever decide to vie for the seat of village idiot.

You're a certain shoo-in.

 

[bodecea]

It arose out of the Christian convictions of the Founders who gave God and, in many cases, the Christ as the source of the concept. They were not the first to think it up, but they were the first to make it a foundation for a new structure of government that had never been tried before in the history of the world.

For an excelent history I recommend Defending the Declaration by Gary T. Amos.

He did some excellent scholarly research to show how a concept of 'unalienable rights of men' were identified and developed by medieval Christian scholars over a period of centuries. Chapter 4 entitled "Unalienable Rights Endowed by the Creator' is especially good to illustrate why the concept has been embraced not only by Americans but by defenders of liberty everywhere.

I fail to see what is christian about the concept of unalienable rights...it's clear a concept that came out of the Enlightenment, that all people are born (whether they believe in a creator or not) with three basic human rights...the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property...and that social contracts are created among people to protect those rights. There's nothing enherently 'christian' about that concept.....unless there's something I'm missing here.

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

 

[TheBrain]

Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation. It was founded by Christian people who were religious. This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord, totalitarian government, special interest, or person.

The purpose of the federal government was to secure and defend those unalienable rights and then allow the people to be free to govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.

The USA was based on a Christian concept. Not religion or Christianity.

I agree with you...except I am puzzled by what I highlited....

What exactly is that Christian concept the USA is based on...the concept of natural/unalienable rights is not traced to Christianity.

Allie...you negged me for THIS post? :rolf: Yeah, I suppost it's that threatening to you.

You're one stupid, useless troll. Do you understand that God given rights are by definition rights given by a God? Do you further understand that the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were in fact Christians tells us that it's probably a pretty good bet that it is the Christian God those fathers were talking about when they talk about God, and not some other god?

An even better question is do you even have any interest in having a real conversation about anything or you merely here to scream that you're fucking right about everything? Because you have failed miserably in this thread on several counts and haven't acknowledged a single one of those errors.

By the way stupid, Jefferson NEVER indicated that he believed ANYONE was entitled to own property. Certainly he believed that everyone was entitled to have the ABILITY to own property, but that is entirely different than what you said.

 

[peach174]

I fail to see what is christian about the concept of unalienable rights...it's clear a concept that came out of the Enlightenment, that all people are born (whether they believe in a creator or not) with three basic human rights...the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property...and that social contracts are created among people to protect those rights. There's nothing enherently 'christian' about that concept.....unless there's something I'm missing here.

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Your missing the point, our government can take away our property for the good of the whole, like highways roads but you must be paid fairly for it. (Amendment V)
It has never been property it has always been pursuit of happiness
Pursuit of Happenss means your own little piece of heaven here on earth. Meaning here in America.
In order the have a peacful society you must have values and good standing character (self discipline) where do you think that teaching comes from?

 

[bodecea]

Again the country was not founded as a religious or Christian nation. It was founded by Christian people who were religious. This nation was born out of their understanding that natural/unalienable rights were God given and would not be ordered or directed or eliminated or repressed by any dictator, monarchy, Church power, feudal lord, totalitarian government, special interest, or person.

The purpose of the federal government was to secure and defend those unalienable rights and then allow the people to be free to govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.

The USA was based on a Christian concept. Not religion or Christianity.

I agree with you...except I am puzzled by what I highlited....

What exactly is that Christian concept the USA is based on...the concept of natural/unalienable rights is not traced to Christianity.

Allie...you negged me for THIS post? :rolf: Yeah, I suppost it's that threatening to you.

You're one stupid, useless troll. Do you understand that God given rights are by definition rights given by a God? Do you further understand that the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were in fact Christians tells us that it's probably a pretty good bet that it is the Christian God those fathers were talking about when they talk about God, and not some other god?

An even better question is do you even have any interest in having a real conversation about anything or you merely here to scream that you're fucking right about everything? Because you have failed miserably in this thread on several counts and haven't acknowledged a single one of those errors.

By the way stupid, Jefferson NEVER indicated that he believed ANYONE was entitled to own property. Certainly he believed that everyone was entitled to have the ABILITY to own property, but that is entirely different than what you said.

Here you go again.....I guess when you've got no real argument, you just come on rude and insulting. You certainly prove that axiom.

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Your missing the point, our government can take away our property for the good of the whole, like highways roads but you must be paid fairly for it. (Amendment V)
It has never been property it has always been pursuit of happiness
Pursuit of Happenss means your own little piece of heaven here on earth. Meaning here in America.

I know that the government can take away property under eminent domain. (From the Constitution....NOT the Dec of Ind)....what I was talking about was how Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" to avoid the perception that the war was all about property...particularly the property of many of the land rich and money rich men in the Constitutional Congress. They had to sell the revolution to everyone...not just the landed gentry. Jefferson knew this.

In order the have a peacful society you must have values and good standing character (self discipline) where do you think that teaching comes from?

Do you think that ONLY comes from Christianity? Be careful...by saying that you might be inferring that a society is not peaceful without Christianity and in order to have values and a good standing character, one has to be a Christian. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Foxfyre]

I fail to see what is christian about the concept of unalienable rights...it's clear a concept that came out of the Enlightenment, that all people are born (whether they believe in a creator or not) with three basic human rights...the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property...and that social contracts are created among people to protect those rights. There's nothing enherently 'christian' about that concept.....unless there's something I'm missing here.

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights. Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.

 

[peach174]

No I'm saying that in order to have freedom from government you need to have a society that can govern themselves.If you don't have that then a Government must control.

By "property," Locke meant MORE than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included A RIGHT TO PERSONAL WELL BEING. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe FREEDOM OF OPPORTUNITY as well as the duty to help those in want. (This is taught in college U. S. History classes)

I don't know what you were reading about Jefferson thinking it was too materialistic sounding but what ever it was you read it is not true.

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea it's -The right to Life,Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
Not right to property.

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights. Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.

We will have to agree to disagree as to WHY Jefferson changed that part of Locke's theory. I know that he was trying to sell the Dec of Ind to the masses and many of those who were going to pick up arms and fight for independence were not property owners.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights. Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.

We will have to agree to disagree as to WHY Jefferson changed that part of Locke's theory. I know that he was trying to sell the Dec of Ind to the masses and many of those who were going to pick up arms and fight for independence were not property owners.

Well I am informed by what Locke wrote and what Jefferson wrote. None of this was group think nor did all march in lockstep, but the concepts were carefully and thoroughly debated over a decade and a half before being written first into the Declaration which provided the substance of the principles behind the Constitution. John Locke died about four decades before Jefferson was born, and well before our Founding Fathers were developing a plan to secede from England and form their own government. Had Locke known about that, he certainly would have addressed it, but it was Locke's philosophical concepts of natural rights and rejection of the right of kings that helped instruct Jefferson's own convictions about that. How to apply that to a system of government was Jefferson & Co.'s concept and not John Locke's.

 

[peach174]

That's what Jefferson said in the Dec of Ind...but he took it from John Locke's basic human rights, Life, Liberty, & Property. (I read somewhere that Jefferson toned the property one down because he didn't want it to be too materialistic sounding)

Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights. Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.

We will have to agree to disagree as to WHY Jefferson changed that part of Locke's theory. I know that he was trying to sell the Dec of Ind to the masses and many of those who were going to pick up arms and fight for independence were not property owners.

The Declaration of Independence was written by the 2nd continental congress and they were not selling it to anybody. They declared freedom from the English Crown and it was voted on unanimously. Towards the end of that document is says;

We,therefore,the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World (meanig God)
It was just like any of things that congress does to this very day, except we have a problem with things passing unanimously with both parties now a days.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jefferson did not view property as inviolate as Locke did and conceded ability to the state to regulate property--zoning laws etc.--which would not be the case with unalienable rights. Jefferson believed, as did Locke, that a person's lawful right to occupy and use his own property was inviolate, but did not agree that a debtor could not claim the property if it wasn't paid for and did not see right of inheritance as a natural right but one regulated by the state.

We will have to agree to disagree as to WHY Jefferson changed that part of Locke's theory. I know that he was trying to sell the Dec of Ind to the masses and many of those who were going to pick up arms and fight for independence were not property owners.

The Declaration of Independence was written by the 2nd continental congress and they were not selling it to anybody. They declared freedom from the English Crown and it was voted on unanimously. Towards the end of that document is says;

We,therefore,the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World (meanig God)
It was just like any of things that congress does to this very day, except we have a problem with things passing unanimously with both parties now a days.

Yes, ability to vote themselves benefits from the people's treasury and to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by using the people's money to dispense favors has created a leadership of opportunists instead of people like the visionary public servants that made up that first Constitutional congress.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to get back to those visionary concepts of self governance and unalienable rights? And, if they were not in agreement, wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Congress would take a decade to research, explore, discuss, and debate the issues and get it right before imposing something new and far reaching onto the American people?