CDZ Barrack, it was you....

[asaratis]

Please offer your comments on this essay by a talk radio host. Discuss any of his claims that you believe to be incorrect.


Mike Gallagher is the 8th most recognized talk radio personality in the country, is heard by over 2.25 million listeners weekly. He compiled and wrote the following essay entitled, "Obama: It was You."

President Obama:
This is why you didn't go to France to show solidarity against the Muslim terrorists:
· It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner -"I am one of you."
· It was you who on ABC News referenced -"My Muslim faith ."
· It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
· It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-"I will stand with the Muslims ."
· It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -"I am a Muslim ."
· It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
· It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
· It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
· It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator " - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
· It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Qur'an.
· It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
· It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
· It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.
· It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
· It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
· It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
· It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
· It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
· It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
· It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
· It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
· It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
· It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
· It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
· It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
· It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
· It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
· It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
· It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
· It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
· It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
· It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.

Distribute this far and wide

 

[320 Years of History]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

 

[Fishlore]

Imagine little Mazin chewing khat with a few of his best buds as they try to figure out what they should do in the revolutionary turmoil that has engulfed much of the Arab world.

Mazin: From what I have learned from Mike Gallagher, a powerful infidel in the USA, the leader of America is a Muslim brother being attacked by his country's Jewish millionaires for trying to protect his brother Muslims.

Fariq: If that is so, this Hussein Obama must be a great man. What can we do to help him, as is our duty to brother Muslims?

Rashid: We must strike his enemies now, before this Gallagher issues a fatwa calling for his death. I have a plan ...

 

[depotoo]

Re the arabic-
Mansfield Arabic Program On Hold

Updated: Feb 8, 2011 4:30 p.m.

MANSFIELD (CBSDFW.COM) – A Mansfield ISD program to teach Arabic language and culture in schools is on hold for now, and may not happen at all.

The school district wanted students at selected schools to take Arabic language and culture classes as part of a federally funded grant.

The Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) grant was awarded to Mansfield ISD last summer by the U.S. Department of Education.

As part of the five-year $1.3 million grant, Arabic classes would have been taught at Cross Timbers Intermediate School and other schools feeding into Summit High School.

Parents at Cross Timbers say they were caught off-guard by the program, and were surprised the district only told them about it in a meeting Monday night between parents and Mansfield ISD Superintendent Bob Morrison.



The Department of Education has identified Arabic as a ‘language of the future.’

 

[jwoodie]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

 

[320 Years of History]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

I could address one or two; given time, I could present essays to support or refute every one of them. But it's pretty clear that part of the intent of listing so damn many things/topics at once is that "weight of numbers" is part of the point the OP is making. I think it's fine if someone wants to make the sorts of cases implied by many/most of the OP statements, but just listing stuff, to say nothing of doing so by using slanted language like "fanatics" and providing false context to things, doesn't demonstrate anything of note other than one's creativity. For example, bowing to a Saudi King is presented as an act of submission rather than a show of human courtesy.

Just to humor you, and out of respect for your request, jwoodie, I'll take the last statement.

Not knowing to what specific statement Mr. Obama made, the fact is that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. It is not because we have established in law the separation of church and state. The U.S. does not have an official state religion. Anyone who thinks the U.S. does is mistaken.

 

[rightwinger]

Please offer your comments on this essay by a talk radio host. Discuss any of his claims that you believe to be incorrect.


Mike Gallagher is the 8th most recognized talk radio personality in the country, is heard by over 2.25 million listeners weekly. He compiled and wrote the following essay entitled, "Obama: It was You."

President Obama:
This is why you didn't go to France to show solidarity against the Muslim terrorists:
· It was you who spoke these words at an Islamic dinner -"I am one of you."
· It was you who on ABC News referenced -"My Muslim faith ."
· It was you who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.
· It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-"I will stand with the Muslims ."
· It was you who assured the Egyptian Foreign Minister that -"I am a Muslim ."
· It was you who bowed in submission before the Saudi King.
· It was you who sat for 20 years in a Liberation Theology Church condemning Christianity and professing Marxism.
· It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.
· It was you who purposefully omitted - "endowed by our Creator " - from your recitation of The Declaration Of Independence.
· It was you who mocked the Bible and Jesus Christ's Sermon On The Mount while repeatedly referring to the 'HOLY' Qur'an.
· It was you who traveled the Islamic world denigrating the United States Of America.
· It was you who instantly threw the support of your administration behind the building of the Ground Zero Victory mosque overlooking the hallowed crater of the World Trade Center.
· It was you who refused to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, but hastened to host an Islamic prayer breakfast at the White House.
· It was you who ordered Georgetown Univ. and Notre Dame to shroud all vestiges of Jesus Christ BEFORE you would agree to go there to speak, but in contrast, you have NEVER requested that the mosques you have visited to adjust their decor.
· It was you who appointed anti-Christian fanatics to your Czar Corps.
· It was you who appointed rabid Islamists to Homeland Security.
· It was you who said that NASA's "foremost mission" was an outreach to Muslim communities.
· It was you who as an Illinois Senator was the ONLY individual who would speak in favor of infanticide.
· It was you who were the first President not to give a Christmas Greeting from the White House, and went so far as to hang photos of Chairman Mao on the WH tree.
· It was you who curtailed the military tribunals of all Islamic terrorists.
· It was you who refused to condemn the Ft. Hood killer as an Islamic terrorist.
· It is you who has refused to speak-out concerning the horrific executions of women throughout the Muslim culture, but yet, have submitted Arizona to the UN for investigation of hypothetical human-rights abuses.
· It was you who when queried in India refused to acknowledge the true extent of radical global Jihadists, and instead profusely praised Islam in a country that is 82% Hindu and the victim of numerous Islamic terrorists assaults.
· It was you who funneled $900 Million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Hamas.
· It was you who ordered the USPS to honor the MUSLIM holiday with a new commemorative stamp.
· It was you who directed our UK Embassy to conduct outreach to help "empower" the British Muslim community.
· It was you who funded mandatory Arabic language and culture studies in Grammar schools across our country.
· It is you who follows the Muslim custom of not wearing any form of jewelry during Ramadan.
· It is you who departs for Hawaii over the Christmas season so as to avoid past criticism for NOT participating in seasonal WH religious events.
· It was you who was uncharacteristically quick to join the chorus of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, formerly America's strongest ally in North Africa; but, remain muted in your non-response to the Brotherhood led slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
· It was you who appointed your chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian, who is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
· It was you who said this country is not a Christian nation.

Distribute this far and wide

It was you who misrepresents everything Obama said and why

 

[asaratis]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

I could address one or two; given time, I could present essays to support or refute every one of them. But it's pretty clear that part of the intent of listing so damn many things/topics at once is that "weight of numbers" is part of the point the OP is making. I think it's fine if someone wants to make the sorts of cases implied by many/most of the OP statements, but just listing stuff, to say nothing of doing so by using slanted language like "fanatics" and providing false context to things, doesn't demonstrate anything of note other than one's creativity. For example, bowing to a Saudi King is presented as an act of submission rather than a show of human courtesy.

Just to humor you, and out of respect for your request, jwoodie, I'll take the last statement.

Not knowing to what specific statement Mr. Obama made, the fact is that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. It is not because we have established in law the separation of church and state. The U.S. does not have an official state religion. Anyone who thinks the U.S. does is mistaken.

We have no imposed religion...but the nation was founded on Christian principles.

We're not all Christian. We have Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Scientologists and others. The principles upon which we base our laws are those of Christianity, some of which are shared by all of the religions here...and the the Atheists.

Christianity in the American Revolution - Quotes from Our Founding Fathers on Religion

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” --James Madison--1778

Perhaps Mr. Obama missed some American History lessons while attending his Muslim upbringing.

 

[320 Years of History]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

I could address one or two; given time, I could present essays to support or refute every one of them. But it's pretty clear that part of the intent of listing so damn many things/topics at once is that "weight of numbers" is part of the point the OP is making. I think it's fine if someone wants to make the sorts of cases implied by many/most of the OP statements, but just listing stuff, to say nothing of doing so by using slanted language like "fanatics" and providing false context to things, doesn't demonstrate anything of note other than one's creativity. For example, bowing to a Saudi King is presented as an act of submission rather than a show of human courtesy.

Just to humor you, and out of respect for your request, jwoodie, I'll take the last statement.

Not knowing to what specific statement Mr. Obama made, the fact is that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. It is not because we have established in law the separation of church and state. The U.S. does not have an official state religion. Anyone who thinks the U.S. does is mistaken.

We have no imposed religion...but the nation was founded on Christian principles.

We're not all Christian. We have Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Scientologists and others. The principles upon which we base our laws are those of Christianity, some of which are shared by all of the religions here...and the the Atheists.

Christianity in the American Revolution - Quotes from Our Founding Fathers on Religion

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” --James Madison--1778

Perhaps Mr. Obama missed some American History lessons while attending his Muslim upbringing.

Look, you and your ilk can engage in whatever form of revisionist history you want. You may even find some bunch of undereducated loons to ascribe to your telling of the tale. That will not take away from the facts and the facts are:

• The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
  
• When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." You'll note that his language is generic with regard to systems of religious belief.
  
• The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified June 10, 1797, expressly stated in Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.​

James Madison:
Though I understand why you, one in general, might refer to James Madison -- his is thought of as the "father" of the Constitution -- I find it pathetic that you dared cite the quote you did to support your claim; indeed it is not only lame, but laughably so. The blurb you provided and ascribed to Madison comes from David Barton's book The Myth of Separation. In it, Mr. Barton sources the statement, and however nice be it that he did, in fact it turns out that the quote does not exist among anything Madison said.

It's not surprising that Mr. Barton's attribution is fabricated for notwithstanding his brazen attempt to recast history, the fact remains that the man in 1785 wrote the following in a paper entitled "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:"

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill...

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.​

You'll find the entire paper at the link I provided. As if the title of the document isn't enough to make clear Mr. Madison's position, read the rest, and it's quite likely that you come to wish you never knew the man had a damn thing to say about Christianity.

If his thoughts expressed in that paper be insufficient evidence of his views on Christianity, readers of James Madison's 1822 letter to Edward Livingston finds:

I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.​

Other Founding Fathers:
James Madison was not the only Founding Father to expressly attest to the absence of religion, be it Christianity or other one, be a core principle on which our nation was founded.

John Adams:
In the preface to A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he wrote:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.​

Thomas Jefferson:
In his letter to Danbury Baptists, a letter written expressly to a religious congregation, wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
​

In his autobiography and writing of the Virginia Act of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.​

Thomas Paine:
In Age of Reason, Thomas Paine wrote:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.
​

Before closing, I want to note that I'm aware that some Christians attempt to assert that faith's place in common law makes it tacitly present in our Constitution, given its and our nation's having inculcated the principle of rule by law. Well, nice try, but Thomas Jefferson addressed exactly that in his letter to Thomas Cooper.

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...

. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law...

...And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that ‘Christianity is part of the laws of England,’ citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that ‘The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.” In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.
​

So, no, just plain no, the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is it one founded on Christianity.

 

[asaratis]

That is just far too many paraphrasings and uncontextually presented remarks for me to analyze or pass on. Even my friends who steadfastly oppose most of everything about Obama except his wife's vegetable garden would not address the comments in that list.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

I could address one or two; given time, I could present essays to support or refute every one of them. But it's pretty clear that part of the intent of listing so damn many things/topics at once is that "weight of numbers" is part of the point the OP is making. I think it's fine if someone wants to make the sorts of cases implied by many/most of the OP statements, but just listing stuff, to say nothing of doing so by using slanted language like "fanatics" and providing false context to things, doesn't demonstrate anything of note other than one's creativity. For example, bowing to a Saudi King is presented as an act of submission rather than a show of human courtesy.

Just to humor you, and out of respect for your request, jwoodie, I'll take the last statement.

Not knowing to what specific statement Mr. Obama made, the fact is that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. It is not because we have established in law the separation of church and state. The U.S. does not have an official state religion. Anyone who thinks the U.S. does is mistaken.

We have no imposed religion...but the nation was founded on Christian principles.

We're not all Christian. We have Jews, Atheists, Buddhists, Scientologists and others. The principles upon which we base our laws are those of Christianity, some of which are shared by all of the religions here...and the the Atheists.

Christianity in the American Revolution - Quotes from Our Founding Fathers on Religion

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” --James Madison--1778

Perhaps Mr. Obama missed some American History lessons while attending his Muslim upbringing.

Look, you and your ilk can engage in whatever form of revisionist history you want. You may even find some bunch of undereducated loons to ascribe to your telling of the tale. That will not take away from the facts and the facts are:

• The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
  
• When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." You'll note that his language is generic with regard to systems of religious belief.
  
• The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified June 10, 1797, expressly stated in Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.​

James Madison:
Though I understand why you, one in general, might refer to James Madison -- his is thought of as the "father" of the Constitution -- I find it pathetic that you dared cite the quote you did to support your claim; indeed it is not only lame, but laughably so. The blurb you provided and ascribed to Madison comes from David Barton's book The Myth of Separation. In it, Mr. Barton sources the statement, and however nice be it that he did, in fact it turns out that the quote does not exist among anything Madison said.

It's not surprising that Mr. Barton's attribution is fabricated for notwithstanding his brazen attempt to recast history, the fact remains that the man in 1785 wrote the following in a paper entitled "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:"

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill...

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.​

You'll find the entire paper at the link I provided. As if the title of the document isn't enough to make clear Mr. Madison's position, read the rest, and it's quite likely that you come to wish you never knew the man had a damn thing to say about Christianity.

If his thoughts expressed in that paper be insufficient evidence of his views on Christianity, readers of James Madison's 1822 letter to Edward Livingston finds:

I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.​

Other Founding Fathers:
James Madison was not the only Founding Father to expressly attest to the absence of religion, be it Christianity or other one, be a core principle on which our nation was founded.

John Adams:
In the preface to A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, he wrote:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.​

Thomas Jefferson:
In his letter to Danbury Baptists, a letter written expressly to a religious congregation, wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
​

In his autobiography and writing of the Virginia Act of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.​

Thomas Paine:
In Age of Reason, Thomas Paine wrote:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church.

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.
​

Before closing, I want to note that I'm aware that some Christians attempt to assert that faith's place in common law makes it tacitly present in our Constitution, given its and our nation's having inculcated the principle of rule by law. Well, nice try, but Thomas Jefferson addressed exactly that in his letter to Thomas Cooper.

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...

. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law...

...And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that ‘Christianity is part of the laws of England,’ citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that ‘The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.” In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law.
​

So, no, just plain no, the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is it one founded on Christianity.

Tony, Tony, Tony! You completely missed my point. I agree with you. We do not officially call ourselves a Christian nation. I haven't claimed that. We are founded on Christian principles. That is all.

This is an accepted fact most American's whether they are Christian or non. Along with taxation without representation, we rid ourselves of the King's Church in forming our union and it's Constitution. The pains that the founding fathers took to guarantee our freedom of and from religion (of any faith) did not strip them of their religious principles....and they were basically a Christian group of men. I think one was a Deist, but can't remember which.

I do appreciate your lengthy, if not copied and pasted diatribe against a non-existent argument, but you really should find another calling.

 

[edthecynic]

It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-"I will stand with the Muslims ."

· It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

They pretty much all are lies, but those two are the most obvious.
Since none of them were backed up with any links, do not demand that I provide links, you must support those lies first. Those two I cited have been thoroughly debunked on numerous threads here on USMB.

 

[asaratis]

It was you who wrote that in the event of a conflict-"I will stand with the Muslims ."

· It was you who exempted Muslims from penalties under Obamacare that the rest of us have to pay.

Why don't you pick one or two and address them, or would that still be too offensive to consider?

They pretty much all are lies, but those two are the most obvious.
Since none of them were backed up with any links, do not demand that I provide links, you must support those lies first. Those two I cited have been thoroughly debunked on numerous threads here on USMB.

I won't be asking for links on anything. I didn't provide a link to start with.

You are correct about the two you addressed.

Regarding the "I will stand..." statement, he actually said "I will stand with them..." and the statement was taken out of context as Obama was reflecting on the ill treatment given to the Japanese American citizens shortly after Pearl Harbor and was saying that he would allow that to happen to Muslims.

Muslims are exempted from Obamacare as are all religious groups whose beliefs are challenged by it. Christian Scientists are also exempt as are a couple of more...can't remember their monikers. Muslims were not singled out as an exempt group...as the author appears to imply.

I'm not arguing for the claims made by the essay's author. 'Discussion of' doesn't mean 'concurrence with'. Just sayin'.....

I do disagree with you statement that they all pretty much are lies.

 

[edthecynic]

Muslims are exempted from Obamacare as are all religious groups whose beliefs are challenged by it. Christian Scientists are also exempt as are a couple of more...can't remember their monikers. Muslims were not singled out as an exempt group...as the author appears to imply.

It is actually a bit more than just objecting to to the law. They must have an established history of declining Social Security benefits and making their own provisions for dependent members, like the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc. While some Muslims might qualify, Islam does object to insurance like life insurance, many more will not because they allow insurance when required by law like auto insurance and do not object to medical insurance. But the biggest impediment to Muslims getting the exemption is that they do not have a history of rejecting Social Security.

So far no Muslim group has ever qualified for an exemption under the guidelines which define which religious groups would be exempt from the health care law, so that claim by Gallagher is in fact a complete lie.

 

[320 Years of History]

Tony, Tony, Tony! You completely missed my point. I agree with you. We do not officially call ourselves a Christian nation. I haven't claimed that. We are founded on Christian principles. That is all.

This is an accepted fact most American's whether they are Christian or non. Along with taxation without representation, we rid ourselves of the King's Church in forming our union and it's Constitution. The pains that the founding fathers took to guarantee our freedom of and from religion (of any faith) did not strip them of their religious principles....and they were basically a Christian group of men. I think one was a Deist, but can't remember which.

I do appreciate your lengthy, if not copied and pasted diatribe against a non-existent argument, but you really should find another calling.

I don't think I missed the point of your opening post, which in my mind was to list a bunch of inflammatory statements and have your audience accept them as fair depictions of Mr. Obama's words, acts, beliefs and intents. The reasons I think those opening post statements were presented in an inflammatory way are three:

• With regard to the one statement I addressed specifically, you have now stated that you agree with my post above and yet you also claim we are founded on Christian principles, not one (or several) of which have you explicitly identified and shown how it is that the Founding Fathers (1) deliberately founded our nation on that (those) principle and also (2) have held the beliefs about Christianity and religion in general as noted in post #9.
  
  Yes, you did attempt to recast the tenor to that of the U.S. being "founded on Christian principles," but as I said, you haven't identified upon which or what Christian principle(s) we were founded. For example, might it be the principle that there is only one God and we have no gods before Him? Or might it be that our nation was founded on the idea that we will do unto others as we'd have them do unto us? Or might it be the principle that God gave and sacrificed his only Son so that we might be absolved of our sins? Or might it be that U.S. was founded on the principle of original sin?
  
• With regard to the one statement I addressed, you didn't express it in your opening post as Mr. Obama's having denied that the U.S. was "founded on Christian principles," nor did you express it as his having stated the U.S. was not "founded on Christian principles." You expressed it originally as Mr. Obama having "said this country is not a Christian nation." If you meant, in a non-inflammatory and contextually sincere way, that Mr. Obama affirmed that the U.S. is not "founded on Christian principles," why did you not present it that way? You didn't and now for all of posterity, your opening post will appear as though you've accused him of saying the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Well, it isn't.
  
• For not one of the allegations you made about Mr. Obama in your opening post have you provided a reference to his express statements that affirm your paraphrasing of them and thereby allows us readers to view the context for any of them so we might agree he intended his words be construed as you have represented them.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is actually a bit more than just objecting to to the law. They must have an established history of declining Social Security benefits and making their own provisions for dependent members, like the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc. While some Muslims might qualify, Islam does object to insurance like life insurance, many more will not because they allow insurance when required by law like auto insurance and do not object to medical insurance. But the biggest impediment to Muslims getting the exemption is that they do not have a history of rejecting Social Security.

So far no Muslim group has ever qualified for an exemption under the guidelines which define which religious groups would be exempt from the health care law, so that claim by Gallagher is in fact a complete lie.

TY for pointing that out. I didn't know of that aspect of the ACA.

 

[320 Years of History]

Tony, Tony, Tony! You completely missed my point. I agree with you. We do not officially call ourselves a Christian nation. I haven't claimed that. We are founded on Christian principles. That is all.

This is an accepted fact most American's whether they are Christian or non. Along with taxation without representation, we rid ourselves of the King's Church in forming our union and it's Constitution. The pains that the founding fathers took to guarantee our freedom of and from religion (of any faith) did not strip them of their religious principles....and they were basically a Christian group of men. I think one was a Deist, but can't remember which.

I do appreciate your lengthy, if not copied and pasted diatribe against a non-existent argument, but you really should find another calling.

Lest you find my prior remarks insufficient in demonstrating that the U.S. is not founded on the remotest notion of Christian principles, I remind you of our Founding Fathers -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the members of the U.S. Senate in July 1797 -- having negotiated, penned, and advised upon and/or ratified the Tripoli treaty I cited earlier. That treaty contains the following words:

...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
​

It is worth noting that the treaty was unanimously ratified by all the senators present.

So whether you meant literally or in principle, you are simply incorrect about the U.S.' being founded on anything having to do with Christianity. If it is so, as you assert, that "most Americans" accept that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles, it is then also true that they, like you, are mistaken in thinking that.

If the extent to which the misunderstanding about the nation's foundations is accurate -- I don't know what "most Americans" actually "accept" -- you may be correct that I need to find a new calling. Most likely that calling is to serve as a teacher of American history so that at least some young Americans grow up knowing that which you and, allegedly, so many others now mature neither learned in school nor discovered on their own.

 

[jwoodie]

All of the original Colonies/States were founded on Christian principles. The US Constitution merely forbade the federal government from favoring one denomination over the others.

 

[asaratis]

Tony, Tony, Tony! You completely missed my point. I agree with you. We do not officially call ourselves a Christian nation. I haven't claimed that. We are founded on Christian principles. That is all.

This is an accepted fact most American's whether they are Christian or non. Along with taxation without representation, we rid ourselves of the King's Church in forming our union and it's Constitution. The pains that the founding fathers took to guarantee our freedom of and from religion (of any faith) did not strip them of their religious principles....and they were basically a Christian group of men. I think one was a Deist, but can't remember which.

I do appreciate your lengthy, if not copied and pasted diatribe against a non-existent argument, but you really should find another calling.

I don't think I missed the point of your opening post, which in my mind was to list a bunch of inflammatory statements and have your audience accept them as fair depictions of Mr. Obama's words, acts, beliefs and intents. The reasons I think those opening post statements were presented in an inflammatory way are three:

• With regard to the one statement I addressed specifically, you have now stated that you agree with my post above and yet you also claim we are founded on Christian principles, not one (or several) of which have you explicitly identified and shown how it is that the Founding Fathers (1) deliberately founded our nation on that (those) principle and also (2) have held the beliefs about Christianity and religion in general as noted in post #9.
  
  Yes, you did attempt to recast the tenor to that of the U.S. being "founded on Christian principles," but as I said, you haven't identified upon which or what Christian principle(s) we were founded. For example, might it be the principle that there is only one God and we have no gods before Him? Or might it be that our nation was founded on the idea that we will do unto others as we'd have them do unto us? Or might it be the principle that God gave and sacrificed his only Son so that we might be absolved of our sins? Or might it be that U.S. was founded on the principle of original sin?
  
• With regard to the one statement I addressed, you didn't express it in your opening post as Mr. Obama's having denied that the U.S. was "founded on Christian principles," nor did you express it as his having stated the U.S. was not "founded on Christian principles." You expressed it originally as Mr. Obama having "said this country is not a Christian nation." If you meant, in a non-inflammatory and contextually sincere way, that Mr. Obama affirmed that the U.S. is not "founded on Christian principles," why did you not present it that way? You didn't and now for all of posterity, your opening post will appear as though you've accused him of saying the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Well, it isn't.
  
• For not one of the allegations you made about Mr. Obama in your opening post have you provided a reference to his express statements that affirm your paraphrasing of them and thereby allows us readers to view the context for any of them so we might agree he intended his words be construed as you have represented them.

Wrong. You did miss the point. The listed allegations are not mine. They of those of the author of the essay. I posted the essay for discussion of the allegations, not to say that I agree with them.

You are a wordy responder with a limited understanding of English text.

 

[asaratis]

Tony, Tony, Tony! You completely missed my point. I agree with you. We do not officially call ourselves a Christian nation. I haven't claimed that. We are founded on Christian principles. That is all.

This is an accepted fact most American's whether they are Christian or non. Along with taxation without representation, we rid ourselves of the King's Church in forming our union and it's Constitution. The pains that the founding fathers took to guarantee our freedom of and from religion (of any faith) did not strip them of their religious principles....and they were basically a Christian group of men. I think one was a Deist, but can't remember which.

I do appreciate your lengthy, if not copied and pasted diatribe against a non-existent argument, but you really should find another calling.

Lest you find my prior remarks insufficient in demonstrating that the U.S. is not founded on the remotest notion of Christian principles, I remind you of our Founding Fathers -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the members of the U.S. Senate in July 1797 -- having negotiated, penned, and advised upon and/or ratified the Tripoli treaty I cited earlier. That treaty contains the following words:

...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.
​

It is worth noting that the treaty was unanimously ratified by all the senators present.

So whether you meant literally or in principle, you are simply incorrect about the U.S.' being founded on anything having to do with Christianity. If it is so, as you assert, that "most Americans" accept that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles, it is then also true that they, like you, are mistaken in thinking that.

If the extent to which the misunderstanding about the nation's foundations is accurate -- I don't know what "most Americans" actually "accept" -- you may be correct that I need to find a new calling. Most likely that calling is to serve as a teacher of American history so that at least some young Americans grow up knowing that which you and, allegedly, so many others now mature neither learned in school nor discovered on their own.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement and was later replaced. It has attracted attention in recent decades because of a clause stating that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

WHAT REPLACED IT?
Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and BTW, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, —" does not mean "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Principles, —"

 

[Freemason9]

Is the OP seriously citing an "opinion" (propaganda, really) from a right-wing talk radio host? Oh, please!