when do we build our own iron curtain?

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
New Guy, basically we're in agreement. More tomorrow, glad you're back and feeling better.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

Thanks for the sentiment, I am glad to be back.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
There is a difference between being "based upon", and being "ruled by".

We are "based upon".

Again, you cannot get around all of the other documentation. Read the sources I lested other than the excerpts I posted. I gave a whole timeline of docs.

I proved and still provide yet more examples that we are to have a Christian ethic and morality of behavior which is not legislated as letter of the law, but implied as spirit of the law.

Documentation clearly makes the statement as well, and also includes the beliefs of our founders as matching.

you didn't prove anything other than the virginia bill of rights is the only one that contains the word christian in it. In fact, there was an attempt to put 'jesus christ' in the bill of rights and it was voted down BECAUSE the founders did not want to steep a country based in christianity as evidenced by many of the founding fathers beliefs about christianity.

The only thing that those documents state is their belief in a supreme creator. Thats it. The rest is assumption on your part.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you didn't prove anything other than the virginia bill of rights is the only one that contains the word christian in it.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html

The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

Based upon the fact that so many AGREED with the wording, and the fact that all who signed AGREED with the wording in the other documents of 1 "Creator", there can only be "ONE" conclusion.

This IS proof of common Christian belief. You claim "only 1 document" shows the WORD Christian. Guess what? IT PROVES THE POINT.

On top of that, we have all of the other ratified, signed documents proving the same.

Your choice to ignore multiple corresponding documents changes nothing contained within.

You can choose to ignore all you want, but I have, indeed, proven we are built upon Christianity and the founders held that belief as well.

It's funny. Apparently you don't read my posts. You spout arguments by taking quotes by themselves out of context and when challenged, you pull only ONE PARAGRAPH from a document produced WELL AFTER all the proof against your point. You then miss the context completely, ignore the history behined it, ignore corresponding journal and historical proof to the contrary of your opinion, and then refuse to read the ratified historical documents against your opinion.

I told you to show your cards after your incorrect conclusion, (which was simply one paragraph from the Tripoli document), and I give you frickin' PAGES proving you wrong.

I bet you don't even know what these documents I list say.

In fact, there was an attempt to put 'jesus christ' in the bill of rights and it was voted down BECAUSE the founders did not want to steep a country based in christianity as evidenced by many of the founding fathers beliefs about christianity.

1. Wrong. As proven by above documentation your opinion of historical fact is way off.

2. Prove it. I can bet you ANYTHING you are doing one of 2 things with your information. You are either:

a: getting this info off of an anti-Christian biased site which invents garbage like this

or

b: you are taking more historical documents out of context because you refuse to read.

I go to the time and effort to show you proof and you discard without reading. How do I know? I know how you view things because we are both have a background in computers and I know the kind of thinking you have to have to diagnose fact.

You cannot possibly have any capacity to refuse this fact unless you simply ignore.

Considering my effort, I consider that an insult.

The only thing that those documents state is their belief in a supreme creator. Thats it. The rest is assumption on your part.

Assumption?

Then you assume knowledge.

I showed you undeniable proof by ANYONES potential to determine truth. You didn't even read it. Only ignoring context can create this "assumption".

Thanks DK, my opinion of you just hit rock bottom.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Based upon the fact that so many AGREED with the wording, and the fact that all who signed AGREED with the wording in the other documents of 1 "Creator", there can only be "ONE" conclusion.

This IS proof of common Christian belief. You claim "only 1 document" shows the WORD Christian. Guess what? IT PROVES THE POINT.

On top of that, we have all of the other ratified, signed documents proving the same.

based on YOUR religious upbringing, does not make it true. You claim 'creator' is undeniable proof that its christian based yet you have only ONE document to back that up. It was ratified yes, but superceded by others WITHOUT that one particular word that you base your entire case on. Therefore you are making the assumption, yet again.
Your choice to ignore multiple corresponding documents changes nothing contained within.

You can choose to ignore all you want, but I have, indeed, proven we are built upon Christianity and the founders held that belief as well.

I'm not ignoring anything, I've read and reread what you've posted and still can only see 'christian' one time throughout the entire set of documentation you listed.

It's funny. Apparently you don't read my posts. You spout arguments by taking quotes by themselves out of context and when challenged, you pull only ONE PARAGRAPH from a document produced WELL AFTER all the proof against your point. You then miss the context completely, ignore the history behined it, ignore corresponding journal and historical proof to the contrary of your opinion, and then refuse to read the ratified historical documents against your opinion.

Again, you've proved nothing except for two things. Only one single document contains the reference you are using to base an entire national belief system and that it was superceded by other documents that do not contain that one single word. You are continuing to assume that based on that one single entry, that the founding fathers made a nation based on the christian religion when its simply not true. No amount of history revisionism will change the truth that the founders kept religion and christianity OUT of the creation of our country because they had history to tell them to.

I told you to show your cards after your incorrect conclusion, (which was simply one paragraph from the Tripoli document), and I give you frickin' PAGES proving you wrong.

you and I used the same documents. Again, you have ONE, a single entry, one word, one document to base your entire argument on when the other documents don't back you up on it. Thats called assumption on your part. I am not incorrect if the documents you post prove my point.

You cannot possibly have any capacity to refuse this fact unless you simply ignore.

what fact? that the word christian is used one time throughout the historical documents? I can't ignore that and I can't ignore that its also not in any of the others. Again, you are assuming that based on YOUR beliefs when its right there in black and white text that the founding fathers made the nation based on individualistic spirituality, not a whole religion.

Considering my effort, I consider that an insult.

You're insulted because I don't see your assumptions as fact?


{quote]I showed you undeniable proof by ANYONES potential to determine truth. You didn't even read it. Only ignoring context can create this "assumption".[/QUOTE]

of a single, superceded and no longer legally valid document. How can you assume 'context' when christianity is not spoken or listed in any of the superceding documents?

Thanks DK, my opinion of you just hit rock bottom.

Because I won't buy into your history revisionism? I'd say I'm sorry, but I'm not. I can only see things as they are written in the very documents that you listed.

 

[NewGuy]

Lets just to go to the eye of the storm. Since you discard the Virginia Declaration of Rights, lookie:

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

Who signed it?

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
[Column 1]
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
[Column 2]

North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
[Column 3]

Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
[Column 4]

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
[Column 5]

New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
[Column 6]

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton



Boy, it sure is a good thing that none of these guys were Christian and that none agreed we are founded on such principles.

-Not to mention the other colonies following suit.

Again, you ignore the documents and skim for only one word.

Tunnel vision doesn't help you learn nor understand.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Look, you can throw all of this around as much as you like, accuse me of ignorance and tunnel vision and tell me you're opinion of me now is rock bottom. You list all of the signers of the declaration of independence yet can't show me in that document where it states that we founded this country based on christian principles, morals, and the bible. You don't list the religious affiliations of all the signers yet assume they are all christian.

I'm sure many of them WERE christians, it won't change the fact that they purposefully left christianity out of the documents to avoid religion having an influence over the government, and by proxy the nation. Religion is totally referenced in all those documents as applying to the individual, not a nation.

You can infer and assume your beliefs and try to make them factual, it will still be an assumption. I can't make you see that and you can't make me see that the US is a christian nation.

We were, and still are, a nation made up of many individuals allowed to pursue our spirituality on a personal nature, not one endorsed, enforced, or encouraged on christianity.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Look, you can throw all of this around as much as you like, accuse me of ignorance and tunnel vision and tell me you're opinion of me now is rock bottom. You list all of the signers of the declaration of independence yet can't show me in that document where it states that we founded this country based on christian principles, morals, and the bible. You don't list the religious affiliations of all the signers yet assume they are all christian.

I'm sure many of them WERE christians, it won't change the fact that they purposefully left christianity out of the documents to avoid religion having an influence over the government, and by proxy the nation. Religion is totally referenced in all those documents as applying to the individual, not a nation.

You can infer and assume your beliefs and try to make them factual, it will still be an assumption. I can't make you see that and you can't make me see that the US is a christian nation.

We were, and still are, a nation made up of many individuals allowed to pursue our spirituality on a personal nature, not one endorsed, enforced, or encouraged on christianity.

Do you have any idea of what you just said?

You just equated "being founded upon" and "being ruled by".

We cleared that up already right here in this thread.

You are arguing we are not "ruled by" yet using the wrong words.

I am saying we are "based upon".

 

[dilloduck]

I think religion has had a positive AND a negative effect on our govt. The founders did a pretty good job of leveling out the playing field

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Do you have any idea of what you just said?

You just equated "being founded upon" and "being ruled by".

We cleared that up already right here in this thread.

You are arguing we are not "ruled by" yet using the wrong words.

I am saying we are "based upon".

and I'm saying we're not. Not all of those founding fathers were christians, unless you have some documents to prove otherwise that you haven't listed yet, and in building this nation they left religious principles as the responsibility of the individual.....not a nation.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and I'm saying we're not. Not all of those founding fathers were christians, unless you have some documents to prove otherwise that you haven't listed yet, and in building this nation they left religious principles as the responsibility of the individual.....not a nation.

EXACTLY.

And the system of government would not legislate religious beliefs, but the SPIRIT of the law was to be shaped by Christian morals and ethics as stated.

In other words, The government comes from the authority and morality of Christianity and can only be properly legislated by people following such morals and ethics.

Hence, knowing these beliefs could not be mandated, a free nation with a balance of powers was created to ISOLATE corruption and minimize it, and to keep a person's FAITH untouchable and PERSONAL.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by NewGuy
EXACTLY.

And the system of government would not legislate religious beliefs, but the SPIRIT of the law was to be shaped by Christian morals and ethics as stated.

In other words, The government comes from the authority and morality of Christianity and can only be properly legislated by people following such morals and ethics.

Hence, knowing these beliefs could not be mandated, a free nation with a balance of powers was created to ISOLATE corruption and minimize it, and to keep a person's FAITH untouchable and PERSONAL.

Our government comes from the authority and morality of a religion?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Our government comes from the authority and morality of a religion?

:read:

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by NewGuy



:read:

guess that's why some of it is flawed and impractical

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
EXACTLY.

And the system of government would not legislate religious beliefs, but the SPIRIT of the law was to be shaped by Christian morals and ethics as stated.

In other words, The government comes from the authority and morality of Christianity and can only be properly legislated by people following such morals and ethics.

Hence, knowing these beliefs could not be mandated, a free nation with a balance of powers was created to ISOLATE corruption and minimize it, and to keep a person's FAITH untouchable and PERSONAL.

Look, we're not so far off of each other I think. We're just disagreeing on the responsibility of morality.

It's the responsibility of the individual to be moral, whether thats based in christianity or not is of little consequence for the moment, and that morality should guide the individual through his choices and decisions. Now, the government comes from the authority of the people, not from christian morality ALTHOUGH many of the founding fathers were indeed christian while others were of another religion yet no less moral.

So, while you may see it as a nation based on christianity, I see it as a nation built and based upon individuals using moral clarity, some based on christianity and some not, but that responsibility is thrust upon the individual, not through founding documents.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Look, we're not so far off of each other I think. We're just disagreeing on the responsibility of morality.

It's the responsibility of the individual to be moral, whether thats based in christianity or not is of little consequence for the moment, and that morality should guide the individual through his choices and decisions. Now, the government comes from the authority of the people, not from christian morality ALTHOUGH many of the founding fathers were indeed christian while others were of another religion yet no less moral.

Except it says quite directly and clearly that the Christian standard of ethics and morals must remain intact in the spirit of the law or the government shall crumble.

Quite clearly, where the system of government was derived, and how it is intended to be treated is clear.

So, while you may see it as a nation based on christianity, I see it as a nation built and based upon individuals using moral clarity, some based on christianity and some not,

No.

I see it BASED on Christianity and you ignore that entirely to only focus on the fact it can be PRACTICED without it.

We agree on only that one point.

Rome's government was in practice WITHOUT it before it fell, too.

It is possible, and it is being done currently. -And, as predicted, we are falling.

but that responsibility is thrust upon the individual, not through founding documents.

Correct, BUT as with any rule book type document, letter and spirit of the law are to be followed IN CONTEXT which means we need to follow those morals and ethics, yet cannot be legallly bound to do so.

 

[DKSuddeth]

fine, i'm done. you're right i'm wrong.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

fine, i'm done. you're right i'm wrong.

at least you're right about that

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
at least you're right about that

you missed the sarcasm, are you that obtuse?

I don't need a stupid ass rebuke from someone who has to argue grammatical errors. You weren't smart enough to argue the merits on your own so stop riding the coattails.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

I thought I was joining in on the sarcasm as I had a similar "you are just wrong because you disagree with me" argument with him yesterday....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The Gorelick Wall. That is OUR Iron cutain. The wall, placed by the left, to end freedom.

Oh please...That "wall" was instituted by the Carter administration and perpetuated by every administration up until Dubbyuh's bunch of neocon chickenhawks landed in Washignton. Jamie Gorelick's memo is nothing more than a canard used in a feeble attempt to discredit her and the 9/11 commission, by Herr Ashcroft, Rush Limbaugh and others of their ilk. It should be noted that the Administration pushed through declassifying the memo in order to use it in this fashion. They complain bitterly about leaks from within their ranks, but will cheerfully authorize leaks in order to try and discredit their opposition. Hypocrites.