Our founding fathers were not Christian

[vincubus]

And you guys WANT these CCR's in office....where they wrap the flag around them and say "YES WE ARE AMERICAN" and yet have no understanding of what America stands for and wants to do away with what the constitution guarantees and then sit back and call themselves American. Horseshit. They dont want America.. they want theocracy. They want Iran. They want the morality police to break into your home at will and make sure your Burka is at ankle length - no skin. It makes me sick to even think about it.

Jamie

it seems obvious to most that to be a conservative christian is to not be an american. christian, then or now, we dont need running our nation. the quotes you posted aren't what the founding fathers wanted either. they knew the dangers of a theocracy.

Define Theocracy

look it up.

 

[Intense]

And you guys WANT these CCR's in office....where they wrap the flag around them and say "YES WE ARE AMERICAN" and yet have no understanding of what America stands for and wants to do away with what the constitution guarantees and then sit back and call themselves American. Horseshit. They dont want America.. they want theocracy. They want Iran. They want the morality police to break into your home at will and make sure your Burka is at ankle length - no skin. It makes me sick to even think about it.

Jamie

it seems obvious to most that to be a conservative Christian is to not be an American. Christian, then or now, we don't need running our nation. the quotes you posted aren't what the founding fathers wanted either. they knew the dangers of a theocracy.

Where do get this crap? So Everyone non Christian has no baggage, and everyone Christian is not competent enough to even be considered a citizen? So you would support denying our voting rights too? How about equal protection under the law? That is a Judea -Christian Principal too. Your way is so much better, I see that now.

 

[vincubus]

And you guys WANT these CCR's in office....where they wrap the flag around them and say "YES WE ARE AMERICAN" and yet have no understanding of what America stands for and wants to do away with what the constitution guarantees and then sit back and call themselves American. Horseshit. They dont want America.. they want theocracy. They want Iran. They want the morality police to break into your home at will and make sure your Burka is at ankle length - no skin. It makes me sick to even think about it.

Jamie

it seems obvious to most that to be a conservative Christian is to not be an American. Christian, then or now, we don't need running our nation. the quotes you posted aren't what the founding fathers wanted either. they knew the dangers of a theocracy.

Where do get this crap? So Everyone non Christian has no baggage, and everyone Christian is not competent enough to even be considered a citizen? So you would support denying our voting rights too? How about equal protection under the law? That is a Judea -Christian Principal too. Your way is so much better, I see that now.

lol! i would not deny you or anyone the right to vote.

if your god said to kill homosexuals, and they were protected under american law, which would you do? obey your god or american laws?

your highest feality is to your god, not our government. and yes, conservative christians have said that gays shoudln't be allowed to exist, that we shouldn't have the freedom to worship any god but the judeo-christian god. you have read the quotes, i hope.

what angers you more, that i am correct, or that your fellow christians are that stupid?

 

[Dreamy]

By the way, regardless of how the language came about: Without a "Creator" bestowing unalienable rights, there is no basis for unalienable rights. There really isn't.

And therein lies the rub. Man can't bestow a freedom that is an unalienable right. Only the Creator can and that is clearly stated. The inalienable rights of men exist beyond any form of, or the absence of, government.

 

[The Illusion]

Define Theocracy

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

Theocracy means literally ‘the rule of God’ and the term was invented by Josephus (ad 38-c. 100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms. A more secular version of the meaning of theocracy is that it is priestly rule. Arguably, however, the more important distinction is between regimes that have religiously revealed laws or policies unchallengeable even by a popular majority or by an inherited monarch, and regimes that do not. (It should be noted that even such regimes which claim that their laws are divinely ordained and thus immutable do not make this claim in respect of all laws. For example, the Islamic Shari'a recognizes a category of positive law, the mubah, covering such matters as driving on the right, which are religiously neutral. See also Islamic fundamentalism; Sunni; Shi'i.)

Read more at: theocracy: Definition from Answers.com

Jamie

 

[Care4all]

Define Theocracy

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

Theocracy means literally ‘the rule of God’ and the term was invented by Josephus (ad 38-c. 100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms. A more secular version of the meaning of theocracy is that it is priestly rule. Arguably, however, the more important distinction is between regimes that have religiously revealed laws or policies unchallengeable even by a popular majority or by an inherited monarch, and regimes that do not. (It should be noted that even such regimes which claim that their laws are divinely ordained and thus immutable do not make this claim in respect of all laws. For example, the Islamic Shari'a recognizes a category of positive law, the mubah, covering such matters as driving on the right, which are religiously neutral. See also Islamic fundamentalism; Sunni; Shi'i.)

Read more at: theocracy: Definition from Answers.com

Jamie

so, the usa isn't even CLOSE to being a theocracy....according to the definition....so what's beef?

 

[Care4all]

it seems obvious to most that to be a conservative Christian is to not be an American. Christian, then or now, we don't need running our nation. the quotes you posted aren't what the founding fathers wanted either. they knew the dangers of a theocracy.

Where do get this crap? So Everyone non Christian has no baggage, and everyone Christian is not competent enough to even be considered a citizen? So you would support denying our voting rights too? How about equal protection under the law? That is a Judea -Christian Principal too. Your way is so much better, I see that now.

lol! i would not deny you or anyone the right to vote.

if your god said to kill homosexuals, and they were protected under american law, which would you do? obey your god or american laws?

your highest feality is to your god, not our government. and yes, conservative christians have said that gays shoudln't be allowed to exist, that we shouldn't have the freedom to worship any god but the judeo-christian god. you have read the quotes, i hope.

what angers you more, that i am correct, or that your fellow christians are that stupid?

what exactly does ''shouldn't be allowed to exist'' mean and can you show some PROOF of your claim about conservative christians supporting such?

 

[Amanda]

Where do get this crap? So Everyone non Christian has no baggage, and everyone Christian is not competent enough to even be considered a citizen? So you would support denying our voting rights too? How about equal protection under the law? That is a Judea -Christian Principal too. Your way is so much better, I see that now.

lol! i would not deny you or anyone the right to vote.

if your god said to kill homosexuals, and they were protected under american law, which would you do? obey your god or american laws?

your highest feality is to your god, not our government. and yes, conservative christians have said that gays shoudln't be allowed to exist, that we shouldn't have the freedom to worship any god but the judeo-christian god. you have read the quotes, i hope.

what angers you more, that i am correct, or that your fellow christians are that stupid?

what exactly does ''shouldn't be allowed to exist'' mean and can you show some PROOF of your claim about conservative christians supporting such?

Don't hold your breath Care. Proof is in short supply in the "Jamie"/Vinny camp, but their having a blow out sale on hot air.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol! i would not deny you or anyone the right to vote.

if your god said to kill homosexuals, and they were protected under american law, which would you do? obey your god or american laws?

your highest feality is to your god, not our government. and yes, conservative christians have said that gays shoudln't be allowed to exist, that we shouldn't have the freedom to worship any god but the judeo-christian god. you have read the quotes, i hope.

what angers you more, that i am correct, or that your fellow christians are that stupid?

what exactly does ''shouldn't be allowed to exist'' mean and can you show some PROOF of your claim about conservative christians supporting such?

Don't hold your breath Care. Proof is in short supply in the "Jamie"/Vinny camp, but their having a blow out sale on hot air.

Proof? Hell, it would be a MIRACLE if they posted something that amounted to EVIDENCE...

 

[vincubus]

what exactly does ''shouldn't be allowed to exist'' mean and can you show some PROOF of your claim about conservative christians supporting such?

sure thing, as soon as you provide verbatim content of all of the various conversations you have had with others months...even years ago. you first.

should you manage to accomplish this, i will then do the same. and as an added bonus if you act now, i will also provide transcripts of all of the 10,000 or so books, magazines and pamphlets i have read since i was 12. i will extend myself for you so that in the future when i post something that either i have read or arose as a thought process from what i have read, i will be johhny on the spot should anyone question my sources. smile.

so, the usa isn't even CLOSE to being a theocracy....according to the definition....so what's beef?

sigh...that is exactly the point. i will now direct you to the title of the thread

 

[Amanda]

There it is again: An assertion without a shred of proof.

You undermine your credibility with every post.

 

[vincubus]

what exactly does ''shouldn't be allowed to exist'' mean and can you show some PROOF of your claim about conservative christians supporting such?

hurry, time is limited!

 

[The Illusion]

There it is again: An assertion without a shred of proof.

You undermine your credibility with every post.

You need to state where it is that he needs proof for an opinion. Or shut the fuck up. Children do this type of thing. Unless you are a child....Id suggest taking a more mature approach.

Jamie

 

[Amanda]

There it is again: An assertion without a shred of proof.

You undermine your credibility with every post.

You need to state where it is that he needs proof for an opinion. Or shut the fuck up. Children do this type of thing. Unless you are a child....Id suggest taking a more mature approach.

Jamie

A more mature approach like saying STFU? Um... ok.

STFU

 

[Hum Dinger]

The most profound refutiation of the U.S. government being founded as a Christian state is the very first words of the Constitution:

"WE THE PEOPLE...DO ORDAIN...."

The U.S. Government IS NOT ORDAINED BY GOD. IT DOES NOT DRIVE ITS VALIDITY FROM GOD.

The Validity of the U.S. Government is based on the inherent dignity of the People.

This statement is commonly overlooked nowadays, but at the time it was written it was considered one of the most profound statements of the founding fathers. It directly defied the historical tradition of Kings being ordained by God...and therefore to go against the King meant to go against God.

 

[vincubus]

The most profound refutiation of the U.S. government being founded as a Christian state is the very first words of the Constitution:

"WE THE PEOPLE...DO ORDAIN...."

The U.S. Government IS NOT ORDAINED BY GOD. IT DOES NOT DRIVE ITS VALIDITY FROM GOD.

The Validity of the U.S. Government is based on the inherent dignity of the People.

This statement is commonly overlooked nowadays, but at the time it was written it was considered one of the most profound statements of the founding fathers. It directly defied the historical tradition of Kings being ordained by God...and therefore to go against the King meant to go against God.

interesting observation.

edward s corwin suggests also that because the phrase "do ordain" rather than did ordain "as a document, the constitution came from the generation of 1787; as a law it derives its force and effect from the present generation of american citizens and hence should be interpreted in light of present conditions...[and] present problems".

in addition, the phrase "the ppl of the united states" rather than "the legal adults" raises the thought that ALL of us are protected under the constitution, including kids.

anyhow, that inherent dignity, that kantian dignity, can easily, as you pointed out, the basis for inalienable rights, thus removing any mention of any creator.

 

[vincubus]

T

jamie, (and i must be talking to myself again, since i must be your sockpuppet, although i am at least a foot taller than you and we have very different posting styles with certain word usages, as all writers exhibit. in another thread i had joked with another poster that he/she should try to argue that interior dialogue could be proven to be from "others". i have toyed with making that argument myself, but of course, some twit would run around yapping at my heels for days to source my own thoughts and arguments. Lol!) it is a sad but true thing that there are always going to be certain ppl who cannot rise to others abilities, and so must strive to pull them down. these ppl are destroyers, and often of low mentality, meally minded and obsessed with their betters...their superiors. these types are best ignored, as they are parasites, almost sociopathic, wanting to drain the energy of others who are very able.

amanda, in her own, very limited way, is actually working to improve your posting style and she acts from her jealousy, and that you ignored her in your suicide thread (causing her feewings to be alll hoited) , but she thinks she is being important, and granted, the more we give the struggling woman the attention she craves to make her small world, the more she will simply puff up with importance. mores the pity, since she can only gain some sense of importance by trying to drag her betters down.

her pitiful attempts for attention, lacking intellectual ability, even extends to her having posted a pic of herself as an avatar in her bikini. and then bragging about it. tragic. really tragic.

i am unconcerned if her or her ilk doubt my or your credibility. the reality of my-and your-life do not hinge on her ankle biting, obsession that we all prove what she cannot believe. if she pines to fill her day and threads with negativity, then power to her. i will do as i have, and that is to ignore her. i dislike ignoring posters, but she has absolutely no content to bring. let her pant and whine about credibility. for her and those like her to doubt my credibility or yours we should wear as a badge of honor. apple trees are known by their fruit, as has been said long ago. her fruits are thread derailment, negativity, and sad attempts to insult her betters.

back on thread, have you read richard h's post?

 

[Smartt33]

I would be willing to bet that if you reasonably defined "founding fathers," you would find that the overwhelming majority of that group were Christians. It'd be interesting, for instance, to trace the history of everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence (Index of Signers by State).

The author of the piece posted to start this thread offered, as far as I can tell, very little substantiation of his or her assertions. The quotes that follow do not do it.

jethro tull rules.

christian appearance and being a christian aren't the same thing. most ppl had one book in their house-the bible. in the face of this superstition, it would not do for an atheist to tout their atheism, but pander to the ignorant masses in order to establish a system (heavily corrupted today) that was the desire of many of the revolutionaries who wanted power.

having attended church for over 25 years, i can certainly believe that many who claimed to be christian in fact were not. but then, only your god is capable of judging if someone is truly a christian or not, but concerning the founders, i am highly skeptical.

you will need to excuse amanda. she is jealous because jamie threatens to take away attention from her. jamie does it by using her intellect, while amanda can only deploy vapid repartie that falls flat and a flirtatious manner. she will hump anyones leg to get her ears scratched.

btw, the case could be made using kantian dignity to support unalienable rights and so removing some "creator" from the equation

This is an issue that will not be solved any time soon, because both sides believe the other infrenges on their personal rights , or environments in some way. I cannot argue that because I stand on a high moral step, and basically refuse to step off by lowering my standards to allow some things to be practiced. If I am in the minority on an issue, I will lose, but I do not have to associate with immoral behavior. I am not trying to be mean. I am just saying that I want the very best for my children's environment, and will do my best to make sure that happens. If America lowers her standards, I just need to stand firm and not tolerate an accociation with the new standards.

 

[JBeukema]

There it is again: An assertion without a shred of proof.

You undermine your credibility with every post.

You need to state where it is that he needs proof for an opinion. Or shut the fuck up. Children do this type of thing. Unless you are a child....Id suggest taking a more mature approach.

Jamie

A more mature approach like saying STFU? Um... ok.

STFU

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

bummer, chica

 

[vincubus]

I would be willing to bet that if you reasonably defined "founding fathers," you would find that the overwhelming majority of that group were Christians. It'd be interesting, for instance, to trace the history of everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence (Index of Signers by State).

The author of the piece posted to start this thread offered, as far as I can tell, very little substantiation of his or her assertions. The quotes that follow do not do it.

jethro tull rules.

christian appearance and being a christian aren't the same thing. most ppl had one book in their house-the bible. in the face of this superstition, it would not do for an atheist to tout their atheism, but pander to the ignorant masses in order to establish a system (heavily corrupted today) that was the desire of many of the revolutionaries who wanted power.

having attended church for over 25 years, i can certainly believe that many who claimed to be christian in fact were not. but then, only your god is capable of judging if someone is truly a christian or not, but concerning the founders, i am highly skeptical.

you will need to excuse amanda. she is jealous because jamie threatens to take away attention from her. jamie does it by using her intellect, while amanda can only deploy vapid repartie that falls flat and a flirtatious manner. she will hump anyones leg to get her ears scratched.

btw, the case could be made using kantian dignity to support unalienable rights and so removing some "creator" from the equation

This is an issue that will not be solved any time soon, because both sides believe the other infrenges on their personal rights , or environments in some way. I cannot argue that because I stand on a high moral step, and basically refuse to step off by lowering my standards to allow some things to be practiced. If I am in the minority on an issue, I will lose, but I do not have to associate with immoral behavior. I am not trying to be mean. I am just saying that I want the very best for my children's environment, and will do my best to make sure that happens. If America lowers her standards, I just need to stand firm and not tolerate an accociation with the new standards.

i appreciate your post. i suspect you and i differ ideologically, but i too am moral, and also do not want standards lowered. especially when it comes to education. i also think it is possible to debate without rancor, should the two (or more) be somewhat civilized and accept the validity of the opposition to the pleasure of their opinion.

i would be willing to discuss matters with you, and do so respectfully, providing you can accept that one should hate the sin, but not the sinner, and accord me the same respect you also desire.