YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[Crackerjack]

Irrelevant. Pick the one that applies.

Ah, no, that's not how it works. The first entry is much more likely to be the one used than the seventh, especially in the absence of context. However, we do have context, and the context points to an Enlightenment Creator tied to no specific religion.

Sorry.

The context is the time and culture in which it is written. Are you sorry for not being able to think logically?

No, the context of the words surrounding.

It's fun to watch strict constructionists suddenly start finding penumbras and emanations when they need them.

 

[Crackerjack]

Feel free to teach the lie. After all, its a free country. But your relativism won't change the absolute truth.

I know, everyone is wrong but poor, persecuted you.

Hollie, is this you under one of your many fake logins??

Believe it or not, there is more than one person out there who can see through your high school debate tactics.

Shocking, I know.

 

[Hollie]

Feel free to teach the lie. After all, its a free country. But your relativism won't change the absolute truth.

I know, everyone is wrong but poor, persecuted you.

Hollie, is this you under one of your many fake logins??

While we're waiting for you to support your false accusation, James Madison, anyone?

James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has 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."
--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance


Regarding State Meddling with Church

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty"

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."
--James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
--James Madison, Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731.


Regarding Church Meddling with State

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."
--James Madison

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
--James Madison, 1820

"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."
--James Madison

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."
--James Madison, 1819

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
--James Madison, 1803

Sources
Little-Known U.S. Document Proclaims America's Government is Secular - The Early America Review, Summer 1997
Madison on church and state
http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_JMadison.htm


Any proof of your false claim yet?

Still waiting!

 

[bodecea]

I know, everyone is wrong but poor, persecuted you.

Hollie, is this you under one of your many fake logins??

Aren't you the frantic, conspiracy theory addled fundie.

Why not support your acusation or acknowledge your claim as another lie.

They are so very very quick to forget that "thou shall bear no false witness" commandment.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, is this you under one of your many fake logins??

Aren't you the frantic, conspiracy theory addled fundie.

Why not support your acusation or acknowledge your claim as another lie.

They are so very very quick to forget that "thou shall bear no false witness" commandment.

"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God."- United States Founding Father, Signer and Penman of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris, "The Life of Governeur Morris", Jared Sparks, (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1832), Vol. III, p. 483, from his "Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France"

I always find it interesting to be lectured about morals by religious people.

Mass murder has historically been a vehicle for expansion of religious ideology. The religious perspectives have been the engine that drove conquests. Shields, placards, belt buckles, engraving on weapons, etc., have borne the symbols of religious ideologies.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about god(s) as billions of non-religionists prove every day. The atrocities of the old testament pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings/behaviors of religious “prophets” have inspired.

I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality and quite clearly, neither do many christians If you look at the history of Christianity. The deeds that they (sometimes) condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. I don’t know of any institution in history which has changed its moral stance as much as the Christian church.
If one tries to live according to strict Biblical law (and if one believes that the Judeo-Christian god is in fact God, then one **must** obey these laws), modern society would imprison you for life, if not out and out sentence you to death (interesting irony: the holy texts are used to support the death penalty, but if one follows to the letter what the holy texts say you must do as god's law, you would incur the very penalty the Bible is used to support!).

So we can see that people select those ethics that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support any ethical foundations.

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".

The rational person can reject such discourse. The worth of Jesus' philosophy is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn very cleverly, which is actually why I find the Bible to be a fascinating book. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

 

[logical4u]

He never said it meant nothing, but it obviously does not mean what you pretend it does.

So...tell us...what does "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." mean to you?

Seems rather clear to me....and to the U.S. Senate who UNANIMOUSLY ratified that treaty.

Dude, I have explained it wtwice already. What reason do I have that a third try will be any different?

You really dont give a shit, so why bother?

But for the lurkers out there, the treaty refers to a formal foundation of authority bsed on a religious claim related to the Divine Right of Kings which the churches gave to a king in Christendom.

Our Republic is not so founded on a religious instution giving its blessing or claim to rule by God's authority. Our Republic is based on the Will of the People for its claim to authority.

The references to the Lord were clearly shown in the "state" Constitutions. A "single" reference to the Lord was shown in the US Constitution. It has become back and forth of "this is blue", troll, "no it's not".

If someone is intellectulally dishonest, you cannot use facts. They have now started "braying".

 

[logical4u]

Excerpts from Washington's Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. [1]

[1] John 14:2-3 King James Version (KJV)

[Jesus Speaking] In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

This should be required reading in every high school history class. Thank you for posting it.

 

[logical4u]

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

/thread

One line that denies we have a leader "appointed" by the Lord (as Christian kings claimed to be) versus pages and pages of evidence that the FF were indeed Christian, spoke freely about their faith and their belief of how the Christian beliefs would improve the country. I am disappointed that you have chosen to join this bunch of braying donkeys.

They are using the same tactics that homosexual activists use with the Bible: "homosexuality" (the word) is not in the Bible, therefore, the Lord did not disagree with it..... They are fully aware of the homosexual acts referenced in the Bible, but just as in this case, they are being intellectually dishonest to promote their corrupt agenda.

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

 

[Crackerjack]

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

They are not so insecure in their religious views that they feel they must spam the board with pages and pages of proof texts allegedly bolstering what they claim is the "truth."

 

[jillian]

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

/thread

One line that denies we have a leader "appointed" by the Lord (as Christian kings claimed to be) versus pages and pages of evidence that the FF were indeed Christian, spoke freely about their faith and their belief of how the Christian beliefs would improve the country. I am disappointed that you have chosen to join this bunch of braying donkeys.

They are using the same tactics that homosexual activists use with the Bible: "homosexuality" (the word) is not in the Bible, therefore, the Lord did not disagree with it..... They are fully aware of the homosexual acts referenced in the Bible, but just as in this case, they are being intellectually dishonest to promote their corrupt agenda.

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

Aside from the fact than any student of history knows most were deists and not christians, it matters less what the founding fathers believed individually than does the fact that they were smart enough not to want anyone imposing their beliefs on anyone else.

why is your religion so insecure that you need everyone else to have it forced on them?

 

[logical4u]

Still no answer.

Guess you must have missed it. Answered in post #356.

It does not say why it is important that the Creator be the Christian god, nor does it address the question as to why it is so vitally important to you that this be seen as a Christian nation.

It is not important for 'us' to "see" this nation as a "Christian" nation. We already know that it is. We also "know" that the blessing (prosperity) found here is a direct result of the Lord's blessings. We are also aware to what happened to every 'nation' that rejected the Lord, and filled His honorary place with arrogance: disgrace and destruction.

'We' would love to avoid that. We would love to have our children blessed by the Lord, and to live in the prosperous country that we have known. 'We' are very concerned that people that do not love the Lord will use a false agenda to corrupt the country and persuade more people to turn away from the Lord (and what would they be turning towards?). 'We' fear that because historically, the lessons of the Lord were extremely harsh: one third put to death, one third sold into slavery, the other third left to die of famine and disease.

'You' choose not to believe. 'You' that live in a nation where prayers are offered up to the Lord every day for this nation and its people live under the blessings given to those that thank the Lord. 'You' refuse to consider this nation without the Christian 'blood and guts' that make it the most prosperous in the world. 'You' refuse to consider how quickly this "prosperity" and wealth can disappear.

'We' choose to be grateful to the Creator, and for the blessings given to us. 'You' choose to be rude and arrogant by claiming that the Lord had nothing to do with it.

Your choice is obvious. 'We' have tried to point out the obvious. 'You' are too hard-hearted to see, hear, etc. Maybe one day, you will be interested in the "Truth".

 

[logical4u]

First, I required a single reference to christianity or to "gods" written in the constitution. You never provided that. You cannot provide that because ti does not exist.

Failing to do that, you have taken to lashing out like a petulant child.

Before you post nonsensical claims in a public discussion board, understand the material you are preaching.

Deny all you want. You were totally owned on this. There it is, right there in Article VII.... "In the Year of our Lord." This is a direct reference to Christ. This is the single reference you say does not exits. Again, repeating 100 more times won't just the fact you were totally skooled!!

No it isn't. It is the term for AD...added to all dates on all legal documents.

What does the date 2012 mean? From what historic point is that measured? Dipshit!

 

[Hollie]

So...tell us...what does "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." mean to you?

Seems rather clear to me....and to the U.S. Senate who UNANIMOUSLY ratified that treaty.

Dude, I have explained it wtwice already. What reason do I have that a third try will be any different?

You really dont give a shit, so why bother?

But for the lurkers out there, the treaty refers to a formal foundation of authority bsed on a religious claim related to the Divine Right of Kings which the churches gave to a king in Christendom.

Our Republic is not so founded on a religious instution giving its blessing or claim to rule by God's authority. Our Republic is based on the Will of the People for its claim to authority.

The references to the Lord were clearly shown in the "state" Constitutions. A "single" reference to the Lord was shown in the US Constitution. It has become back and forth of "this is blue", troll, "no it's not".

If someone is intellectulally dishonest, you cannot use facts. They have now started "braying".

The reference to "lord" in the constitution is, of course, not what you want it to be. In the context of these posts, the issue was in connection with references to a religious figure or ideology as having some meaningful impact in the formulation of the constitution. It did not.

 

[jack113]

Dude, I have explained it wtwice already. What reason do I have that a third try will be any different?

You really dont give a shit, so why bother?

But for the lurkers out there, the treaty refers to a formal foundation of authority bsed on a religious claim related to the Divine Right of Kings which the churches gave to a king in Christendom.

Our Republic is not so founded on a religious instution giving its blessing or claim to rule by God's authority. Our Republic is based on the Will of the People for its claim to authority.

The references to the Lord were clearly shown in the "state" Constitutions. A "single" reference to the Lord was shown in the US Constitution. It has become back and forth of "this is blue", troll, "no it's not".

If someone is intellectulally dishonest, you cannot use facts. They have now started "braying".

The reference to "lord" in the constitution is, of course, not what you want it to be. In the context of these posts, the issue was in connection with references to a religious figure or ideology as having some meaningful impact in the formulation of the constitution. It did not.

You religious Taliban are in the wrong country.

America was founded on constitutional law not any state religion.

 

[Crackerjack]

Guess you must have missed it. Answered in post #356.

It does not say why it is important that the Creator be the Christian god, nor does it address the question as to why it is so vitally important to you that this be seen as a Christian nation.

It is not important for 'us' to "see" this nation as a "Christian" nation. We already know that it is. We also "know" that the blessing (prosperity) found here is a direct result of the Lord's blessings. We are also aware to what happened to every 'nation' that rejected the Lord, and filled His honorary place with arrogance: disgrace and destruction.

'We' would love to avoid that. We would love to have our children blessed by the Lord, and to live in the prosperous country that we have known. 'We' are very concerned that people that do not love the Lord will use a false agenda to corrupt the country and persuade more people to turn away from the Lord (and what would they be turning towards?). 'We' fear that because historically, the lessons of the Lord were extremely harsh: one third put to death, one third sold into slavery, the other third left to die of famine and disease.

'You' choose not to believe. 'You' that live in a nation where prayers are offered up to the Lord every day for this nation and its people live under the blessings given to those that thank the Lord. 'You' refuse to consider this nation without the Christian 'blood and guts' that make it the most prosperous in the world. 'You' refuse to consider how quickly this "prosperity" and wealth can disappear.

'We' choose to be grateful to the Creator, and for the blessings given to us. 'You' choose to be rude and arrogant by claiming that the Lord had nothing to do with it.

Your choice is obvious. 'We' have tried to point out the obvious. 'You' are too hard-hearted to see, hear, etc. Maybe one day, you will be interested in the "Truth".

You assume a whole lot about me that isn't true, I'm afraid. Just like you assume every reference to a Creator must mean your evangelical God, and that anyone who doesn't believe that is some sort of atheist. Sorry, it's not as black and white as you would like to have it, so kindly stop talking down to those of us who don't see things as absurdly narrow as you stiff-necked Pharisees do.

As to rudeness and arrogance, well, the thread speaks for itself on that particular point. Your side does not fare well. I don't expect you to see that, though. It doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

 

[Crackerjack]

What does the date 2012 mean? From what historic point is that measured? Dipshit!

Speaking of rude and arrogant ...

EDIT: Oh, and negged.

 

[logical4u]

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

They are not so insecure in their religious views that they feel they must spam the board with pages and pages of proof texts allegedly bolstering what they claim is the "truth."

Did you count their pages of repetative posting? Did you notice when they are proven wrong they go back to the the original disagreement (presumably to replay the entire posting, again)? Have you acknowledged the intellectual dishonesty they use? Talk to the hand!

 

[Crackerjack]

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

They are not so insecure in their religious views that they feel they must spam the board with pages and pages of proof texts allegedly bolstering what they claim is the "truth."

Did you count their pages of repetative posting? Did you notice when they are proven wrong they go back to the the original disagreement (presumably to replay the entire posting, again)? Have you acknowledged the intellectual dishonesty they use? Talk to the hand!

People like you aren't interested in debate. They never are, as they have discovered the Truth™ and have no patience for any other perspective.

Feel free to call me another name, praise Jebus.

 

[logical4u]

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

/thread

One line that denies we have a leader "appointed" by the Lord (as Christian kings claimed to be) versus pages and pages of evidence that the FF were indeed Christian, spoke freely about their faith and their belief of how the Christian beliefs would improve the country. I am disappointed that you have chosen to join this bunch of braying donkeys.

They are using the same tactics that homosexual activists use with the Bible: "homosexuality" (the word) is not in the Bible, therefore, the Lord did not disagree with it..... They are fully aware of the homosexual acts referenced in the Bible, but just as in this case, they are being intellectually dishonest to promote their corrupt agenda.

Then they want to get on their high horses and pretend they are intellectuals.... they are fools for all to see.

Aside from the fact than any student of history knows most were deists and not christians, it matters less what the founding fathers believed individually than does the fact that they were smart enough not to want anyone imposing their beliefs on anyone else.

why is your religion so insecure that you need everyone else to have it forced on them?

Just one more example of intellectual dishonesty (and this one really can't handle facts, can you J): please, by all means list where I am "forcing" my religion onto everyone else. Do you even know what religion I belong to?

Again (warning, warning, repeat for donkeys): this nation was and is a predominantly Christian nation. That is totally different from having a Christian "dictator".

 

[logical4u]

Dude, I have explained it wtwice already. What reason do I have that a third try will be any different?

You really dont give a shit, so why bother?

But for the lurkers out there, the treaty refers to a formal foundation of authority bsed on a religious claim related to the Divine Right of Kings which the churches gave to a king in Christendom.

Our Republic is not so founded on a religious instution giving its blessing or claim to rule by God's authority. Our Republic is based on the Will of the People for its claim to authority.

The references to the Lord were clearly shown in the "state" Constitutions. A "single" reference to the Lord was shown in the US Constitution. It has become back and forth of "this is blue", troll, "no it's not".

If someone is intellectulally dishonest, you cannot use facts. They have now started "braying".

The reference to "lord" in the constitution is, of course, not what you want it to be. In the context of these posts, the issue was in connection with references to a religious figure or ideology as having some meaningful impact in the formulation of the constitution. It did not.

I can't understand, "eee haw, ee haw", what does that mean?