Interesting quote

[Annie]

Politically and internationally speaking the treaty is irrelevent. The historical relevance is the fact that in 1797, whether or not the translation was correct, the United States Senate unanimously approved a treaty that included a line denying that the Government of the United States was in any way founded on the Christian religion. Whether or not the translation was correct is irrelevent.

acludem

I know this might come as a shock, but US Senators have been known not to read what they are voting on! :shocked: Ask the current crop that voted on the Patriot Act or 9/11 legislation, they were 'hoodwinked'!

 

[Annie]

Politically and internationally speaking the treaty is irrelevent. The historical relevance is the fact that in 1797, whether or not the translation was correct, the United States Senate unanimously approved a treaty that included a line denying that the Government of the United States was in any way founded on the Christian religion. Whether or not the translation was correct is irrelevent.

acludem

Well YOU brought it up! Said it was 'interesting' and all.

 

[Said1]

Well YOU brought it up! Said it was 'interesting' and all.

Just like the shocked Canadian who didn't know God is mentioned in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

 

[Annie]

Just like the shocked Canadian who didn't know God is mentioned in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Damn!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Said1 again.

 

[Said1]

Damn!

Hey. Some lessons you never forget. I got dinged with that one by myself. I'm surprised that wasn't 'ammended' in '82.

Although, one could argue that it could be a Hindu God. I like Gnesha.

 

[dilloduck]

Hey. Some lessons you never forget. I got dinged with that one by myself. I'm surprised that wasn't 'ammended' in '82.

Although, one could argue that it could be a Hindu God. I like Gnesha.

Is that the elephant?

 

[Said1]

Is that the elephant?

Oh. He's more than an elephant, much more.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh. He's more than an elephant, much more.

Cool--anymore would be TMI.

 

[acludem]

The founding fathers were determined to prohibit a state-sponsored religion. Everyone knows that, and it is not disputed. Nothing you have cited contradicts that, or adds any more anti-Christian sentiment to it.

The bigger question is: What are you so afraid of that you search so passionately for ways to de-Christianize our history and our country's traditional and lasting values? I promise not to vote for anyone who wants to force you to convert, okay? Unlike Islam, the Christian God wants people to come to him willingly, not by force or threat of violence. I swear.

I'm not trying to "de-Christianize" our history. For me to that, our history would have to have been "Christianized" in the first place. It isn't. The only real "Christian" part of our History is that of the Puritans, who after coming here for religious freedom, ironically established a qausi-theocracy of the type yearned for by the religious right (i.e. belief in God mandatory, strictly enforced moral behavior code, etc.)

The point of my posting the original quote was to call into question the constant assertion from the far right that this country was "founded on Christian values". This is only part of a mountain of evidence that shows this country was founded on a principle of separation of church and state, both to protect the church and the state.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not trying to "de-Christianize" our history. For me to that, our history would have to have been "Christianized" in the first place. It isn't. The only real "Christian" part of our History is that of the Puritans, who after coming here for religious freedom, ironically established a qausi-theocracy of the type yearned for by the religious right (i.e. belief in God mandatory, strictly enforced moral behavior code, etc.)

The point of my posting the original quote was to call into question the constant assertion from the far right that this country was "founded on Christian values". This is only part of a mountain of evidence that shows this country was founded on a principle of separation of church and state, both to protect the church and the state.

acludem

And God knows Christians need protection from the ACLU.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm not trying to "de-Christianize" our history. For me to that, our history would have to have been "Christianized" in the first place. It isn't. The only real "Christian" part of our History is that of the Puritans, who after coming here for religious freedom, ironically established a qausi-theocracy of the type yearned for by the religious right (i.e. belief in God mandatory, strictly enforced moral behavior code, etc.)

The point of my posting the original quote was to call into question the constant assertion from the far right that this country was "founded on Christian values". This is only part of a mountain of evidence that shows this country was founded on a principle of separation of church and state, both to protect the church and the state.

acludem

Let's try one more time: It is perfectly possible, and in fact, it happened(!), that our founding fathers founded this country on Christian values, while simultaneously making sure that we do not live under a State religion, as was the case in England.

As for this:

The point of my posting the original quote was to call into question the constant assertion from the far right..."

I asked why you feel the need to do this in the first place. Something is driving you to feel such an overwhelming need; I think it would be good for you to figure out exactly what that driving force is. Of course, you are free to do as you wish, because after all, we live in a country where there is no state-mandated religion.