Obama: We Are Not a Christian Nation

[Patriot123]

For once, I couldn't agree more with Obama. Funny how the neoconservatives are going after him for saying, "America is not a Christian nation." Honestly, this is really getting me po'd. We are NOT a Christian nation. And to hear morons like Hannity and Savage say that we are is a disgrace. What made this country so great? Why did so many people immigrate to this country? Because America wasn't some quasi religious state bent on making everyone a member of their own religion. It wasn't a nation where you were expected to bow down to another religion. It was a nation where everyone was equal. Where everyone had rights. Not some religious crap nation. Why is it that the terms Christianity, bible, Jesus, Moses, etcetera aren't in the Constitution? Why did none of the founders express that this country was a religious nation? It's disgusting what these neocons are doing to this nation. Moreso than the liberals. We are NOT a religious country.

[phixion]

Oh yes you are. Perhaps not technically, but oh you are.

Pete

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

For once, I couldn't agree more with Obama. Funny how the neoconservatives are going after him for saying, "America is not a Christian nation." Honestly, this is really getting me po'd. We are NOT a Christian nation. And to hear morons like Hannity and Savage say that we are is a disgrace. What made this country so great? Why did so many people immigrate to this country? Because America wasn't some quasi religious state bent on making everyone a member of their own religion. It wasn't a nation where you were expected to bow down to another religion. It was a nation where everyone was equal. Where everyone had rights. Not some religious crap nation. Why is it that the terms Christianity, bible, Jesus, Moses, etcetera aren't in the Constitution? Why did none of the founders express that this country was a religious nation? It's disgusting what these neocons are doing to this nation. Moreso than the liberals. We are NOT a religious country.

Have you ever attended a college?

[yongrel]

Flamewar in 5... 4... 3...

(I reserve the privilege of participating in said flame war.)

[jkm1864]

Apparently You are looking at history with Athiest colored glasses. I swear You people hate God so much You are blind to the truth. There was many letters and speaches gave by our leaders that had the term GOD in them. This country was once a majority Christian nation and one thing they wanted was religious freedom due to all the damn witch burnings in europe. Today it is not a Christian nation because look around You. This country is a disgrace and will fall soon because the people lack the certain principles that made this country great. Oh I do look forward to the collapse though because people tend to become more conservative the poorer they are and more liberal the richer they are.

[SeanEdwards]

Flamewar in 5... 4... 3...

(I reserve the privilege of participating in said flame war.)

I almost had a flame eruption... but in the time it took me to type out my righteous fury I cooled off. Freakin bible-thumpers. I wish the rapture would hurry up and come so those fruits would vacate the scene permanently.

[hypnagogue]

Oh, religion, the greatest divider in human history. Is there any wonder I want no part in it? Obama isn't all bad of course. Very few people are. Still, I can't vote for him.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I almost had a flame eruption... but in the time it took me to type out my righteous fury I cooled off. Freakin bible-thumpers. I wish the rapture would hurry up and come so those fruits would vacate the scene permanently.

Every significant form of human endeavor outside of knitting was a direct result of the Church. This is why they have basic courses in college so professors can steer naive students away from historical fallacy.

[Patriot123]

Apparently You are looking at history with Athiest colored glasses. I swear You people hate God so much You are blind to the truth. There was many letters and speaches gave by our leaders that had the term GOD in them. This country was once a majority Christian nation and one thing they wanted was religious freedom due to all the damn witch burnings in europe. Today it is not a Christian nation because look around You. This country is a disgrace and will fall soon because the people lack the certain principles that made this country great. Oh I do look forward to the collapse though because people tend to become more conservative the poorer they are and more liberal the richer they are.

'Blind to the truth?' Are you seriously kidding? No, really, it's a serious question.

And yes, so what if they had the term god in them. They never said that we were a Christian nation. They were Deists. Sure, some Christians, but they all had the same principles. To NOT create another Christian Great Britain. Did they ever say in the Federalist Papers that we were a religious nation? Did they ever say anywhere else that we were a religious nation? Why is it that in the Treaty of Tripoli it says, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?" Why is it that Christianity, bible, Jesus, Moses, Torah, Judeo-Christian or any of those other terms not mentioned in the Constitution? Why is it that only seven percent of the country belonged to a Church when the Declaration of Independence was signed? Why is it that in the Declaration of Independence it says "Nature's God" and "the Laws of Nature?" Why is it that Jefferson, Adams, Paine and Madison said all of the following?


"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."


"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."


Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."


"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"


"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."


Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."


James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."




Our founders did in fact believe in god. But they did not make this country a country based on one religion. They made this country so that people could be free from being told how to run their lives. That is what made this country great. Not the bible. I"m tired of hearing from people who value the Vatican more than our nation say that we're a Christian nation. I'm sorry, but really. I don't... I don't understand how someone could believe that we are a Christian nation. Because we aren't. Not in any such way.

[hypnagogue]

Every significant form of human endeavor outside of knitting was a direct result of the Church. Just wow....

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Apparently You are looking at history with Athiest colored glasses. I swear You people hate God so much You are blind to the truth. There was many letters and speaches gave by our leaders that had the term GOD in them. This country was once a majority Christian nation and one thing they wanted was religious freedom due to all the damn witch burnings in europe. Today it is not a Christian nation because look around You. This country is a disgrace and will fall soon because the people lack the certain principles that made this country great. Oh I do look forward to the collapse though because people tend to become more conservative the poorer they are and more liberal the richer they are.

I don't think these young fellows hate God as much as they are just ignorant of history. The idea that religion and science have been at each others throats is absurd since all "scientists" had to be members of the clergy to serve in the Church as natural philosophers.
Even Gallileo wasn't at odds with theologians as much as he was at odds with the faulty logic of Aristotle that the Church had adopted as God's natural laws.
Another naivity is that we someone got our desires for freedom from some other culture outside of our Christian heritage. The ideals of liberty clearly came from our Protestantism and Puritanism.

[Zolah]

Being considered a secular country would be nice.

I think Bush&Co specifically use their version of phoney baloney religion to help manipulate opinions.

[SeanEdwards]

I don't think these young fellows hate God as much as they are just ignorant of history. The idea that religion and science have been at each others throats is absurd since all "scientists" had to be members of the clergy to serve in the Church as natural philosophers.
Even Gallileo wasn't at odds with theologians as much as he was at odds with the faulty logic of Aristotle that the Church had adopted as God's natural laws.
Another naivity is that we someone got our desires for freedom from some other culture outside of our Christian heritage. The ideals of liberty clearly came from our Protestantism and Puritanism.

There were protestants in ancient Athens?

:rolleyes:

Edit: I don't hate god, because I don't expend energy hating the imaginary cloud-dwelling friend of fools. I hate pompous bible-thumpers who insist on forcing their stupid fantasy shit into my life.

[sophocles07]

There were protestants in ancient Athens?

Seriously. Uncle Watkins sounds like a hillbilly drinking moonshine when he talks like this.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Oh yes you are. Perhaps not technically, but oh you are.

Pete

I assume you are speaking of our secular culture over here. We could be atheist until blue in the face and that wouldn't change our secular Christian culture.

[Patriot123]

I don't think these young fellows hate God as much as they are just ignorant of history. The idea that religion and science have been at each others throats is absurd since all "scientists" had to be members of the clergy to serve in the Church as natural philosophers.
Even Gallileo wasn't at odds with theologians as much as he was at odds with the faulty logic of Aristotle that the Church had adopted as God's natural laws.
Another naivity is that we someone got our desires for freedom from some other culture outside of our Christian heritage. The ideals of liberty clearly came from our Protestantism and Puritanism.

Ignorant of history? Um, no. Unless you're studying to become a history major, I don't believe you have the right to comment there. And of course they had to [scientists]. Because if they didn't bow down to the Church they'd be killed. Or they'd do to them what they did to Galileo. Religion is a poison. It divides humanity. Science has essentially proved religion to be a story with funny characters and names. And NO, they absolutely DID NOT. They came in the time period of the French revolution. The French came up with the idea of liberty. They got it because they were being oppressed by their monarchy. When we founded our country, we essentially stole their ideas.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

There were protestants in ancient Athens?

:rolleyes:

Edit: I don't hate god, because I don't expend energy hating the imaginary cloud-dwelling friend of fools. I hate pompous bible-thumpers who insist on forcing their stupid fantasy shit into my life.

Duh. Err. Aristotle wasn't even known in Western Europe until the 13th century ACE. That would be After the Common Era. He was introduced into Europe by Arab Moor philosophers in southern Spain. Then Christian philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas incorporated Aristotle's works into the Catholic Church as God's natural laws. This later became the foundation for Western science.

[SeanEdwards]

"Goodness did not exist on this earth, until the reverend Falwell gave us the teachings of our lord and savior! Blessed be the bloody blood of the lamb. Hallelujah! Has anyone seen the keys to my hoveround?"

[Truth Warrior]

Obama agreed with George Washington on that one. ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ignorant of history? Um, no. Unless you're studying to become a history major, I don't believe you have the right to comment there. And of course they had to [scientists]. Because if they didn't bow down to the Church they'd be killed. Or they'd do to them what they did to Galileo. Religion is a poison. It divides humanity. Science has essentially proved religion to be a story with funny characters and names. And NO, they absolutely DID NOT. They came in the time period of the French revolution. The French came up with the idea of liberty. They got it because they were being oppressed by their monarchy. When we founded our country, we essentially stole their ideas.

Liberty didn't originate from a Greek idea. It originated from a our deeply rooted Christian secular culture. Catholic Protestants. English Puritans. If it didn't originate from the age of faith (Christianity) then it had to originate from the Greeks (age of reason). We got the idea of Democracy from the Greeks. Not freedom.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Being considered a secular country would be nice.

I think Bush&Co specifically use their version of phoney baloney religion to help manipulate opinions.

We don't see Bush Democracy spreading in Zimbabwe but we don't see oil either. Hmm . . ..

[Patriot123]

Liberty didn't originate from a Greek idea. It originated from a our deeply rooted Christian secular culture. Catholic Protestants. English Puritans. If it didn't originate from the age of faith (Christianity) then it had to originate from the Greeks (age of reason). We got the idea of Democracy from the Greeks. Not freedom.

...did you even read what I wrote? I said that liberty came from the French. French minds. French books. The French. Not the Greeks. The French. It did NOT originate from Christians. It originated from a country that was very oppressed by its monarchy. We stole the idea from them. The French. I'll be damned if the Church came up with the idea, because if they were to come up with anything in terms of political ideologies, it would be a religious dictatorship. The church was corrupt. There's no way in hell they would have endorsed letting people have "freedom of speech and religion." These are French ideas. Not Christian ideas. You people say you hate Jews for being more loyal to Israel than the US. I'm Jewish. I may not believe in god, but I'm Jewish. You people value the Vatican more than the US. So I don't see how you can say that... I just really don't. I'm sorry, but I just really don't.

And we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic.

[sophocles07]

Liberty didn't originate from a Greek idea. It originated from a our deeply rooted Christian secular culture. Catholic Protestants. English Puritans. If it didn't originate from the age of faith (Christianity) then it had to originate from the Greeks (age of reason). We got the idea of Democracy from the Greeks. Not freedom.

That's actually true (though it could be argued against)--that the Greeks did not give us the concept of liberty/freedom. They had conceptions of these things, but they were not the same as ours. I find it strange, however, that you ignore Cicero and the Roman pagans who had very developed senses of freedom, liberty, law, etc. and put it all on the backs of your one religion as the savior/deliverer of such ideals to the present day. It's just not factual. There are differences--as there are with EVERY SINGLE philosophical idea--through time, but it didn't "originate" with Protestantism or Puritanism.

[Indy4Chng]

You must be completely ignoring history if you don't think this country was founded on Chrisitian principles. The founding members were incredible christian. Their beef was there were different types of christian's and the government (as was the case in England) should not be able to say how you should worship. It was because of Christianity this country was founded.

I think they got most of the republic idea from the Romans, cause we were originally founded as a republic, we have since migrated to more of a democratic republic.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just wow....

True history is amazing, isn't it? I can still remember as a naive student getting my ears pin backed in regards to real history.

[sophocles07]

It was because of Christianity this country was founded.

Jesus, do we have to keep hearing this shit? Yes, Christianity was influential; yes, many were Christian.

Does that mean we are or were a "Christian country"...FUCK NO: read Jefferson's queries on religious freedom. And his many letters on the Bible.

[SeanEdwards]

It was because of Christianity this country was founded.


http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

[Cowlesy]

True history is amazing, isn't it? I can still remember as a naive student getting my ears pin backed in regards to real history.

I was an econ major and never once was Friedman/Mises/Von Hayek ever mentioned, or any of their scholarly work used. Keynes/Schumpeter/Hegel/Marx/Walra -- that was it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You must be completely ignoring history if you don't think this country was founded on Chrisitian principles. The founding members were incredible christian. Their beef was there were different types of christian's and the government (as was the case in England) should not be able to say how you should worship. It was because of Christianity this country was founded.

I think they got most of the republic idea from the Romans, cause we were originally founded as a republic, we have since migrated to more of a democratic republic.

Yes! Ha Ha! The burden to seperate Church from state wasn't to protect the state from the Church but to protect the Church from the state!

Pure Christianity as it pertained to the bible wasn't reopened to the world until Martin Luther did so in the 16th century. Up to that time Christianity amounted to worshipping rituals made up by the Pope.

[Patriot123]

You must be completely ignoring history if you don't think this country was founded on Chrisitian principles. The founding members were incredible christian. Their beef was there were different types of christian's and the government (as was the case in England) should not be able to say how you should worship. It was because of Christianity this country was founded.

I think they got most of the republic idea from the Romans, cause we were originally founded as a republic, we have since migrated to more of a democratic republic.

We're a Federal Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. Not a 'Democratic Republic.' A Federal Constitutional Republic. And again, the ideas of liberty came from the French ;)

And again, as I said before, unless you're studying to become a history major you have no right to comment. Our country was not founded on Christian principles. And I would ask you exactly what "principles" you're thinking of? Really, what principles? I can't think of any. And sure, they might have been Christian, but they were also Deist. But they all had the same philosophy of no allegiance to one religion. And no. This country was not founded because of Christianity. And you know what? I'm going to temporarily resurrect one of the founders to tell you just that.


The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

Two points if you can tell me where that's from. ;)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I just wonder what it is about this that people hate? TONES



"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."


Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10

[ThePieSwindler]

Flamewar in 5... 4... 3...

(I reserve the privilege of participating in said flame war.)

Good prediction. Not that it was hard to do so...

[TER]

Pure Christianity as it pertained to the bible wasn't reopened to the world until Martin Luther did so in the 16th century. Up to that time Christianity amounted to worshipping rituals made up by the Pope.

I would disagree with this statement, as you are ignoring the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[TER]

We're a Federal Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. Not a 'Democratic Republic.' A Federal Constitutional Republic. And again, the ideas of liberty came from the French ;)

What was the religion of most of the French during that time?

[TER]

I just wonder what it is about this that people hate? TONES



"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."


Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10


Thank you for this. :)

[Patriot123]

What was the religion of most of the French during that time?

Division Fallacy.

Just because the French were Christian doesn't mean that's what's responsible for the ideas. The French came up with the ideas because they were pissed off with their monarchy.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Epistle...:)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Jesus, do we have to keep hearing this shit? Yes, Christianity was influential; yes, many were Christian.

Does that mean we are or were a "Christian country"...FUCK NO: read Jefferson's queries on religious freedom. And his many letters on the Bible.

Look at it from the point of view of what we are not. We aren't a Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or a Hindu nation. Try saying that India isn't a Hindu nation.
I mean, you guys have me laughing right now.

[TER]

Division Fallacy.

Just because the French were Christian doesn't mean that's what's responsible for the ideas. The French came up with the ideas because they were pissed off with their monarchy.

I see. So the fact that they were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

[Patriot123]

I see. So the fact that they were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

Yes. Again, Division Fallacy. If you don't know what that means, please, by all means look it up.

[Indy4Chng]

[QUOTE=Patriot123;1532601]We're a Federal Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. Not a 'Democratic Republic.' A Federal Constitutional Republic. And again, the ideas of liberty came from the French ;)
QUOTE]

We were a republic, there is no way you can say we are a republic today. Originally the people only elected representitives and only a few people could vote. Now we elect every position and everyone can vote there is a lot more democracy then originally intended. In certain state the people can directly change state consitutions and pass laws. That is not a republic. Federally we are still a little more of a republic, but originally I belive senators were elected by the representatives as well as the president.

[RideTheDirt]

Two points if you can tell me where that's from. ;)
Sounds like some sort of Declaration of some sort...Probably Declaring Independance?

[SeanEdwards]

Look at it from the point of view of what we are not. We aren't a Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or a Hindu nation. Try saying that India isn't a Hindu nation.
I mean, you guys have me laughing right now.

About 200 million muslim Indians are getting very irritated with your shenanigans.

[Patriot123]

[QUOTE=Indy4Chng;1532617][QUOTE=Patriot123;1532601] - whatever you said, can't be bothered to find it-


Do we make laws? Do we vote on acts? Do we decide when to go to war? Do we decide how the Constitution will be interpreted? Does majority rule in court cases? Are fifty one percent of the people ruling over forty nine percent? No. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic.

[Truth Warrior]

IF anything, I'd say it was a Freemason nation. ;)

[Patriot123]

Sounds like some sort of Declaration of some sort...Probably Declaring Independance?
Bingo. I was beginning to think that no one would get that.





About 200 million muslim Indians are getting very irritated with your shenanigans.
QFT.

[TER]

Yes. Again, Division Fallacy. If you don't know what that means, please, by all means look it up.

:) I did look it up. What I have learned from the definition is that the comment I made would fall into such a fallacy of division if what I am stating is false.

I have yet to learn from you how my statement is false. You stating that they were pissed off at the monarchy does not make my statement false.

To rephrase my statement: The fact that the French at that time were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had more than a little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

[Indy4Chng]

"Do we make laws"

We do in the state I live in, we can even change the constitution by a simple majority vote. I'm not saying we don't live in a republic, but there is a lot more democracy in it then originally intended.

We could oppress the minority if an amendment of the constitution passed (by simply majority), however the judges would probably try to overturn it even if they didn't have the right to.

[Patriot123]

:) I did look it up. What I have learned from the definition is that the comment I made would fall into such a fallacy of division if what I am stating is false.

I have yet to learn from you how my statement is false. You stating that they were pissed off at the monarchy does not make my statement false.

To rephrase my statement: The fact that the French at that time were mostly believers in Jesus Christ being the incarnate Word of God had more than a little influence in their ideas of freedom and justice.

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

[Patriot123]

"Do we make laws"

We do in the state I live in, we can even change the constitution by a simple majority vote. I'm not saying we don't live in a republic, but there is a lot more democracy in it then originally intended.

We could oppress the minority if an amendment of the constitution passed (by simply majority), however the judges would probably try to overturn it even if they didn't have the right to.

What state? And doesn't matter. All though we may have a very small number of aspects that pertain to a Democracy, we are still a Federal Constitutional Republic. And no. The people cannot amend the constitution. Their elected representatives can. The people cannot.

[TER]

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

Thank you for this post. It is very informative.

My point is that there have been many revolutions in many places in the world during many different eras of history, and those revolutions which espoused and propagated the idea of liberty and religious tolerance has overwhelimingly happened in countries whose majority of people believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I would disagree with this statement, as you are ignoring the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Hmmm . . . did the Eastern Orthodox Church have the original Greek interpretation of the New Testament? Before it split away from the Catholic Church, wasn't its foundation likewise poisoned by the Platonic philosophy incorporated into the early foundation of the Catholic Church by St. Augustine? I can see where the woshipping of rituals established by the Eastern Orthodox Pope would still happen because of the prior history that it shared with the early Catholic Church. Also, what kind of repression did the Arabs have on the Church during their occupation.
Anyway. You bring up a great point to consider.

[TER]

Hmmm . . . did the Eastern Orthodox Church have the original Greek interpretation of the New Testament? Before it split away from the Catholic Church, wasn't its foundation likewise poisoned by the Platonic philosophy incorporated into the early foundation of the Catholic Church by St. Augustine? I can see where the woshipping of rituals established by the Eastern Orthodox Pope would still happen because of the prior history that it shared with the early Catholic Church. Also, what kind of repression did the Arabs have on the Church during their occupation.
Anyway. You bring up a great point to consider.

I know this not an appropriate thread to begin discussing the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but I should tell you that your post has many inaccuracies in it and humbly suggest you research more about the history of the Early Church.

[Patriot123]

Thank you for this post. It is very informative.

My point is that there have been many revolutions in many places in the world during many different eras of history, and those revolutions which espoused and propagated the idea of liberty and religious tolerance has overwhelimingly happened in countries whose majority of people believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

This is because a large part of the world is Christian. Think of times before Christianity. There were revolts, too, which seeked to have more freedom and whatnot. (Were they in pursuit of full-force liberty? No, because the idea wasn't around yet) Were they because of blank religion? No. They were because the people were pissed off. That's why. It means nothing if these countries were Christian or not. Revolts don't happen because people want to uphold "moral values from their religion." (Even though Christianity doesn't have too many) People revolt because they're pissed off. Twisting history will do you no good.

[LibertyEagle]

You must be completely ignoring history if you don't think this country was founded on Chrisitian principles. The founding members were incredible christian. Their beef was there were different types of christian's and the government (as was the case in England) should not be able to say how you should worship. ~snip

I think they got most of the republic idea from the Romans, cause we were originally founded as a republic, we have since migrated to more of a democratic republic.

+1

[Indy4Chng]

What state? And doesn't matter. All though we may have a very small number of aspects that pertain to a Democracy, we are still a Federal Constitutional Republic. And no. The people cannot amend the constitution. Their elected representatives can. The people cannot.

That is wrong.. I know for sure the people in California and Oregon (where I live) can. And I believe many other states can as well. The people can sign a petition to add a iniative to the ballot that modifies the constitution (if it gets enough signatures). Then if the people vote in favor 50.1% then the constitution is amended, it circumvents the legislature. Haven't you read anything on the Gay Rights in California how they don't won't to allow the iniative to reach the ballot as it would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. The reps wouldn't do this but the people only.

We can also pass a law using the same method in fact many times when the representatives have raised taxes the people passed a law eliminating the tax law passed by the state congress.

How is that not a form of democracy in a republic the people (with no accountability of thier votes) could not do such.

[TER]

Non Sequitur Fallacy.

This is because a large part of the world is Christian. Think of times before Christianity. There were revolts, too, which seeked to have more freedom and whatnot. (Were they in pursuit of full-force liberty? No, because the idea wasn't around yet) Were they because of blank religion? No. They were because the people were pissed off. That's why. It means nothing if these countries were Christian or not. Revolts don't happen because people want to uphold "moral values from their religion." (Even though Christianity doesn't have too many) People revolt because they're pissed off. Twisting history will do you no good.

I simply disagree with you. Does that mean I am right and you are wrong? No.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The point is that they didn't come up with the ideas because they were Christian. Or because they wanted to "show how great the church was," when in reality it was comparable to Al Qaeda. They came up with these ideas because they were being oppressed by their monarchy and wanted a new government. They wanted a revolution. They wanted change, and they meant it. Think about how the Pope at the time did not endorse the French revolution and said that anyone who supported it was not a true Christian. Why did he say that? Because he was pissed off at the fact that the French seized all of the churches property. Hows that for "we love Jesus?" The country was divided up between people who supported their country more than their religion and people who supported their religion more than their country. The people who came up with the ideology of liberty were French minds who were on the side of their own country. Otherwise they would have never written what they did out of loyalty to their religion.

But we only have our Christian heritage or our Greek heritage to draw from. There was no such thing as a French heritage. The French revolution came about because Jean Rousseau, a person without a formal education, taught himself to read dialogues by Plato. FACT: The reason Western Europe created major Universites after the 13th century was to unravel the mysteries created by the introduction of Aristotle's works during that time. Before the Greek philosophers introduction, all schools in Western Europe were Christian. That is why they referred to that age as "the age of faith."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I know this not an appropriate thread to begin discussing the difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but I should tell you that your post has many inaccuracies in it and humbly suggest you research more about the history of the Early Church.

Thanks for not responding to the post.

[Patriot123]

That is wrong.. I know for sure the people in California and Oregon (where I live) can. And I believe many other states can as well. The people can sign a petition to add a iniative to the ballot that modifies the constitution (if it gets enough signatures). Then if the people vote in favor 50.1% then the constitution is amended, it circumvents the legislature. Haven't you read anything on the Gay Rights in California how they don't won't to allow the iniative to reach the ballot as it would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. The reps wouldn't do this but the people only.

We can also pass a law using the same method in fact many times when the representatives have raised taxes the people passed a law eliminating the tax law passed by the state congress.

How is that not a form of democracy in a republic the people (with no accountability of thier votes) could not do such.

So a few states have a few characteristics of a Democracy. We still have an overwhelming number of characteristics of a Federal Constitutional Republic. You can't argue what's in the books. We are defined, as a nation, as a Federal Constitutional Republic. You cannot change that.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."

[Patriot123]

I simply disagree with you. Does that mean I am right and you are wrong? No.

Um, it does [that you're wrong, that is] when I just disproved everything you said in this topic.

[TER]

Off to work so I can't reply right now. Good night and 'talk' to you all tommorrow.

[Patriot123]

But we only have our Christian heritage or our Greek heritage to draw from. There was no such thing as a French heritage. The French revolution came about because Jean Rousseau, a person without a formal education, taught himself to read dialogues by Plato. FACT: The reason Western Europe created major Universites after the 13th century was to unravel the mysteries created by the introduction of Aristotle's works during that time. Before the Greek philosophers introduction, all schools in Western Europe were Christian. That is why they referred to that age as "the age of faith."

What are you talking about? What does heritage have to do with anything? Our founders stole the idea of liberty from the French. They didn't have to be of French heritage to 'steal the idea.' That would make no sense. And you're assuming that just because universities were Christian means that the ideas of liberty should be credited to Christianity. Rousseau hated Christianity. He even said that "followers of Jesus would not make good citizens." Shows how "Christian" his ideas really were, right? Voltaire wasn't too 'Christian' either. Christianity was not around during the times of Aristotle. You're trying to find a line between Aristotle and the French which includes Christianity, and there frankly is none. Christianity had no effect. Sure, they may have taught it, but it has nothing to do with Voltaire, Rousseau, etcetera. And if you still don't believe that we stole the idea from the French, look at who Paine was influenced by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine (Right side of page, you should see it) He was influenced by: Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Religious Society of Friends, Montesquieu. They're all there. Even Montesquieu. Liberty is not a Christian idea. Look at Jefferson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

"Jefferson's republican political principles were heavily influenced by the Country Party of 18th century British opposition writers. He was influenced by John Locke (particularly relating to the principle of inalienable rights). Historians find few traces of any influence by his French contemporary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.[31]"

[constitutional]

For once, I couldn't agree more with Obama. Funny how the neoconservatives are going after him for saying, "America is not a Christian nation." Honestly, this is really getting me po'd. We are NOT a Christian nation. And to hear morons like Hannity and Savage say that we are is a disgrace. What made this country so great? Why did so many people immigrate to this country? Because America wasn't some quasi religious state bent on making everyone a member of their own religion. It wasn't a nation where you were expected to bow down to another religion. It was a nation where everyone was equal. Where everyone had rights. Not some religious crap nation. Why is it that the terms Christianity, bible, Jesus, Moses, etcetera aren't in the Constitution? Why did none of the founders express that this country was a religious nation? It's disgusting what these neocons are doing to this nation. Moreso than the liberals. We are NOT a religious country.
Do you have a link to this story?

[Patriot123]

Do you have a link to this story?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik


At the speech, Obama also seemingly blasted the "Christian Right" for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation:
I love this guy. He's a socialist, but heck, if it's between him and McCain, there's no competition.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What are you talking about? What does heritage have to do with anything? Our founders stole the idea of liberty from the French. They didn't have to be of French heritage to 'steal the idea.' That would make no sense. And you're assuming that just because universities were Christian means that the ideas of liberty should be credited to Christianity. Rousseau hated Christianity. He even said that "followers of Jesus would not make good citizens." Shows how "Christian" his ideas really were, right? Voltaire wasn't too 'Christian' either. Christianity was not around during the times of Aristotle. You're trying to find a line between Aristotle and the French which includes Christianity, and there frankly is none. Christianity had no effect. Sure, they may have taught it, but it has nothing to do with Voltaire, Rousseau, etcetera. And if you still don't believe that we stole the idea from the French, look at who Paine was influenced by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine (Right side of page, you should see it) He was influenced by: Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Religious Society of Friends, Montesquieu. They're all there. Even Montesquieu. Liberty is not a Christian idea. Look at Jefferson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

I can debate you but I can't massively educate you. For the last time. Western Europe was either Christian Schools or advanced Universities built to unravel the mysteries of the philosophers from the Greek Zenith. Specifically Plato and Aristotle. What is that saying?

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them...
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 39 [Free Press, 1979];

Aside from the enormous influence Plato had on the western world, Aristotle established the foundation of modern science.

So, literally speaking, it is either Christian influence or Greek influence. When considering liberty, we didn't inherit such an ideal from the Greeks.

[sophocles07]

Look at it from the point of view of what we are not. We aren't a Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or a Hindu nation. Try saying that India isn't a Hindu nation.
I mean, you guys have me laughing right now.

Yes, obviously. That’s because it has no official religion—it is neither “Christian” nor “Buddhist” nation.


I can debate you but I can't massively educate you. For the last time. Western Europe was either Christian Schools or advanced Universities built to unravel the mysteries of the philosophers from the Greek Zenith. Specifically Plato and Aristotle. What is that saying?

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them...
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 39 [Free Press, 1979];

Aside from the enormous influence Plato had on the western world, Aristotle established the foundation of modern science.

So, literally speaking, it is either Christian influence or Green influence. When considering liberty, we didn't inherit such an ideal from the Greeks.

As I’ve said before: you’re forgetting Cicero &co. Pagans. Non-Greek Pagans. Vide: Libertas.

And: show me the origin in Christian Protestant / Puritanism that you are claiming. Specifically.

[familydog]

Apparently some people confuse "nation" and "state."

We were not, and still are not a Christian state. That is obvious and is a good thing.

We are and always have been a Christian nation. The majority of founders were Christian. Everybody who participated in the American Revolution should be considered our "founders," not just a few elites at the top. Taking into account all people who helped to defeat the British and support a new country, we can planely see that the majority of our "founders" were indeed Christian. Simply put, a nation refers to a group of people living togather who share similar characteristics, want to be self-governing, and voluntarily partcipate in the nation. So going by this definition, we can see the nation is made up of majority Christians, wanting to be self governing, at the same time voluntarily participating in this nation (whose culture relies on Christianity so much). I don't see any change since the founding, so I'd still Consider this a Christian nation.

[sophocles07]

Apparently some people confuse "nation" and "state."

We were not, and still are not a Christian state. That is obvious and is a good thing.

We are and always have been a Christian nation. The majority of founders were Christian. Everybody who participated in the American Revolution should be considered our "founders," not just a few elites at the top. Taking into account all people who helped to defeat the British and support a new country, we can planely see that the majority of our "founders" were indeed Christian. Simply put, a nation refers to a group of people living togather who share similar characteristics, want to be self-governing, and voluntarily partcipate in the nation. So going by this definition, we can see the nation is made up of majority Christians, wanting to be self governing, at the same time voluntarily participating in this nation (whose culture relies on Christianity so much). I don't see any change since the founding, so I'd still Consider this a Christian nation.

Well, I'd be fine with that designation--though I do not think it is what the theocratically-tinged HERE and in the Evangelical movement are claiming, they are claiming much more--as it merely states a mathematical fact.

[Patriot123]

I can debate you but I can't massively educate you. For the last time. Western Europe was either Christian Schools or advanced Universities built to unravel the mysteries of the philosophers from the Greek Zenith. Specifically Plato and Aristotle. What is that saying?

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them...
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 39 [Free Press, 1979];

Aside from the enormous influence Plato had on the western world, Aristotle established the foundation of modern science.

So, literally speaking, it is either Christian influence or Greek influence. When considering liberty, we didn't inherit such an ideal from the Greeks.
And I'm telling you that you're trying to find a line between Christianity and the French and it aint' working. It does not matter if Christian universities studied Aristotle and Plato. The before mentioned French minds were not educated in Christian schools. Some might have been, but even then they hated Christianity. Aristotle was not Christian. Why? Because Christianity wasn't around during the time of Aristotle. All you're saying is that just because Christians studied Aristotles ideas makes them Christian ideas. They are NOT Christian ideas.

Do you know why those universities were Christian? Because half the freaking world was Christian. Why? Because if you weren't Christian you were killed. But I'm certain that's a Christian accomplishment too; your numbers, right? [That was to make a point.]

[Patriot123]

Apparently some people confuse "nation" and "state."

We were not, and still are not a Christian state. That is obvious and is a good thing.

We are and always have been a Christian nation. The majority of founders were Christian. Everybody who participated in the American Revolution should be considered our "founders," not just a few elites at the top. Taking into account all people who helped to defeat the British and support a new country, we can planely see that the majority of our "founders" were indeed Christian. Simply put, a nation refers to a group of people living togather who share similar characteristics, want to be self-governing, and voluntarily partcipate in the nation. So going by this definition, we can see the nation is made up of majority Christians, wanting to be self governing, at the same time voluntarily participating in this nation (whose culture relies on Christianity so much). I don't see any change since the founding, so I'd still Consider this a Christian nation.

Depends what you mean by nation. If you just mean population wise, then I'll agree with you. But if you mean what we were founded on and such, then absolutely not. Our founders were not Christians. They were Deists. They were men of The Enlightenment, not of the bible. If you do a bit of research, you will see that the founders hated the bible, thought it was evil and corrupted man, etcetera. Note how there are no references to Jesus, the bible, etcetera in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. There are, however, references to nature's god and such. This supports the fact that our founders were Deists. Again, in the Treaty of Tripoli, it even says we are not a Christian nation. [There's a bunch of quotes I posted on page one, if not two] Either way, whether you want to argue that they were or were not Christian, their philosophy was the same, however. That America was not to be a nation loyal to one religion over another. Where all citizens had the right to practice whatever religion they wanted in a society where all religions were accepted, and where everyone had legitimate rights.

[garrettwombat]

"the age of reason" by thomas paine(our first founding father)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes, obviously. That’s because it has no official religion—it is neither “Christian” nor “Buddhist” nation.

Okay. We have no official religion because we have a law that prevents the state from interfering with religion. No state Church. Now if that law happened to protect the state from the influences of religion, so much the better.
However, we have no atheist religion. There is no established atheist history, tradition or heritage. So, we aren't atheist, Arab, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. We have to be some religion because atheism is just now getting up and going. Hmmm . . . I wonder. What could it be?


As I’ve said before: you’re forgetting Cicero &co. Pagans. Non-Greek Pagans. Vide: Libertas.

And: show me the origin in Christian Protestant / Puritanism that you are claiming. Specifically.

We are certainly influenced by paganism in the United States. I am certain that there were other influences outside of Plato and Aristotle. Still, consider that the foundation for the religion of the Catholic Church was first established by St. Augustine on Plato's philosophy in the 4th century ACE while St. Thomas Aqinas established God's natural laws on Aristotle's works in the 13th century ACE. Challenging the influences of these 2 philosophers would be challenging the Catholic Church itself. Just ask Galileo.
Catholic protestants were the ones who started worshipping the Word of God out of the bible during the time of Martin Luther. Before the common practice was to worship the rituals that the Pope had established as God's authority on earth. The Catholics Christians during that time were not allowed to read the bible in a language other than Latin. Latin was well known to be a very poor interpretation of the New Testament.
Most of my knowledge about the American Puritans was learned in the prerequisite American literature classes that I had to take. The first text book on American literature dealt with American Puritanism beginning with the story about "The Scarlet Letter." Although only the earliest colonists were Puritan, their secular influence had a tremendous effect on the American heritage.

[familydog]

Depends what you mean by nation. If you just mean population wise, then I'll agree with you. But if you mean what we were founded on and such, then absolutely not. Our founders were not Christians. They were Deists. They were men of The Enlightenment, not of the bible. If you do a bit of research, you will see that the founders hated the bible, thought it was evil and corrupted man, etcetera. Note how there are no references to Jesus, the bible, etcetera in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. There are, however, references to nature's god and such. This supports the fact that our founders were Deists. Again, in the Treaty of Tripoli, it even says we are not a Christian nation. [There's a bunch of quotes I posted on page one, if not two] Either way, whether you want to argue that they were or were not Christian, their philosophy was the same, however. That America was not to be a nation loyal to one religion over another. Where all citizens had the right to practice whatever religion they wanted in a society where all religions were accepted, and where everyone had legitimate rights.

I challenge your notion of who our founders were. It is elitist to reduce all people outside men at the top to just the "population." The American Revolution would not have happened nor the war would have been won without the help and support of the "population." Surely they should be accounted for as much as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, etc.

With that said, it can be argued that the "population" were very much Christian. As Christian, they argued Enlightenment ideals as much as men of letters like Jefferson, but the "population" saw those ideals as being Christian. The values of life, liberty, and property, were seen as Protestant in nature. Whether or not they are correct is not relevent. See the book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber for an one of many insights into how the "population" attributed Enlightenment ideals to be Christian. So if you look at the whole, our "founders" were Christian even though certain ones at the top weren't.

Also, this may be getting slightly off topic, but worthy to mention nonetheless. Aristotle is often credited as being the first to suggest a notion of natural law. Natural law became a very important part of the European Enlightenment from Locke to Rosseau. What is important here is the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to analyze Aristotle's writings and put the modern concept of natural law into it. Therfore, we should attribute the very religious Aquinas as the first to suggest the modern (Enlightenment) notion of natural law. Why this could be relevent is that while the European Enlightenment was a sort of backlash against religion, one of the main pillars of the Enlightenment (natural law) came about because of a very religious person.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Depends what you mean by nation. If you just mean population wise, then I'll agree with you. But if you mean what we were founded on and such, then absolutely not. Our founders were not Christians. They were Deists. They were men of The Enlightenment, not of the bible. If you do a bit of research, you will see that the founders hated the bible, thought it was evil and corrupted man, etcetera. Note how there are no references to Jesus, the bible, etcetera in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. There are, however, references to nature's god and such. This supports the fact that our founders were Deists. Again, in the Treaty of Tripoli, it even says we are not a Christian nation. [There's a bunch of quotes I posted on page one, if not two] Either way, whether you want to argue that they were or were not Christian, their philosophy was the same, however. That America was not to be a nation loyal to one religion over another. Where all citizens had the right to practice whatever religion they wanted in a society where all religions were accepted, and where everyone had legitimate rights.

Here is a good article on that:

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[Alex Libman]

You can't argue with God-slaves. You can only smile, nod, and back away slowly.


---

[Off-topic section removed by Moderator]

[yongrel]

You can't argue with God-slaves. You can only smile, nod, and back away slowly.

How 'bout you try really, really hard not to be an e-asshole? It'll take some effort, but I promise you that it's worth it.

[Alex Libman]

How 'bout you try really, really hard not to be an e-asshole? It'll take some effort, but I promise you that it's worth it.

That's what people said to Socrates and Martin Luther and Thomas Paine and Rosa Parks and even Ron Paul. My answer is also no.

Here I stand. I can do no other. :o


---

[Off-topic removed by Moderator]

[Patriot123]

I challenge your notion of who our founders were. It is elitist to reduce all people outside men at the top to just the "population." The American Revolution would not have happened nor the war would have been won without the help and support of the "population." Surely they should be accounted for as much as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, etc.

With that said, it can be argued that the "population" were very much Christian. As Christian, they argued Enlightenment ideals as much as men of letters like Jefferson, but the "population" saw those ideals as being Christian. The values of life, liberty, and property, were seen as Protestant in nature. Whether or not they are correct is not relevent. See the book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber for an one of many insights into how the "population" attributed Enlightenment ideals to be Christian. So if you look at the whole, our "founders" were Christian even though certain ones at the top weren't.

Also, this may be getting slightly off topic, but worthy to mention nonetheless. Aristotle is often credited as being the first to suggest a notion of natural law. Natural law became a very important part of the European Enlightenment from Locke to Rosseau. What is important here is the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to analyze Aristotle's writings and put the modern concept of natural law into it. Therfore, we should attribute the very religious Aquinas as the first to suggest the modern (Enlightenment) notion of natural law. Why this could be relevent is that while the European Enlightenment was a sort of backlash against religion, one of the main pillars of the Enlightenment (natural law) came about because of a very religious person.

1) Elitist? Don't tell me, you're a conspiracy theorist? Look. Seven percent of the nation belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed. What does that say? Seven percent. I find it hard to believe that Americans were culturally Christian when the US was founded.
2) So then the right to ones life is also a Christian idea, then? And so is the right to free speech? And the right to be secure in your home? Hmmm. That's funny. Because that's often called human nature. See, if you were to kill your buddies friend, well... let's just say it tends to create conflict ;) People learn, and, well... would you look at that? We now have morals. How'd that happen? Must have been religion.
3) Source? Whether that's right or wrong, Aristotle is still responsible for that which influenced said French minds who influenced our founders. Not this guy of yours ;) With that said, I'm not going to debate twenty different things so let's stick to the above two points and not get off topic ;)

[yongrel]

That's what people said to Socrates and Martin Luther and Thomas Paine and Rosa Parks and even Ron Paul. My answer is also no.

Here I stand. I can do no other. :o

But you see, the difference between them and you is that they actually contributed something of value.

[Patriot123]

Here is a good article on that:

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

That was quite refreshing to read, actually... Thanks.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

And I'm telling you that you're trying to find a line between Christianity and the French and it aint' working. It does not matter if Christian universities studied Aristotle and Plato. The before mentioned French minds were not educated in Christian schools. Some might have been, but even then they hated Christianity. Aristotle was not Christian. Why? Because Christianity wasn't around during the time of Aristotle. All you're saying is that just because Christians studied Aristotles ideas makes them Christian ideas. They are NOT Christian ideas.

Do you know why those universities were Christian? Because half the freaking world was Christian. Why? Because if you weren't Christian you were killed. But I'm certain that's a Christian accomplishment too; your numbers, right? [That was to make a point.]

The Christian schools existed before Universities. Universities were later built after the 13th century to unravel the mysteries of Aristotle and most of Plato.

[familydog]

1) Elitist? Don't tell me, you're a conspiracy theorist? Look. Seven percent of the nation belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed. What does that say? Seven percent. I find it hard to believe that Americans were culturally Christian when the US was founded.
2) So then the right to ones life is also a Christian idea, then? And so is the right to free speech? And the right to be secure in your home? Hmmm. That's funny. Because that's often called human nature. See, if you were to kill your buddies friend, well... let's just say it tends to create conflict ;) People learn, and, well... would you look at that? We now have morals. How'd that happen? Must have been religion.
3) Source? Whether that's right or wrong, Aristotle is still responsible for that which influenced said French minds who influenced our founders. Not this guy of yours ;) With that said, I'm not going to debate twenty different things so let's stick to the above two points and not get off topic ;)

You don't want to debate my last point, but took time to critique it. Cute :rolleyes:

Read my post again carefully. I'm not suggesting that they were correct in their assertions that Enlightement ideas = Christian ideas. I simply pointed out that it was the popular thought. Argue with them, not with me.

You won't find too many scholarly accounts of the colonial and Revolutionary period that deny the "population" as culturaly Christian. Did you know that the Declaration of Independence was not the only "declaration"? Jefferson got his inspiration from anti-federalist George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights." (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm) He specifically mentions Christianianity and its benefits to society:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Also, there were over 90 state and local declarations before Jefferson's, many of them specifically mention God or Christianity. (see historian Pauline Maier's book American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence for a list--p. 217-223). Certainly many of these declarations that mention "God" or "Christianity" can be evidence that suggests a groundswell approval of Christianity among the "population."

Historian Gordon Wood, in his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution states:

"All along, of course, varieties of Protestantism had been a major adhesive force for ordinary Americans, often the principles source of community and order in their lives. But the Revolution had disrupted American Religion; it scattered congregations, destroyed church buildings, interupted the training of ministers, and politicized people's thinking. The religious yearnings of common people, however, remained strong, stronger than any of the revolutionary leaders realized. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century powerful currents of popular religious feeling flowed beneath the genteel and secular surface of public life, awaiting only the developing democratic revolution to break through the rationalistic and skeptical crust of the Enlightenment and sweep over and transform the landscape of the country. The consequences were far-reaching, not just for the mass of ordinary people but for many of the enlightened revolutionary leaders themselves, who were frightened and bewildered by this democratic revolution." --p.329

Tocqueville observes the same phenomena all through his book Democracy in America.

Historian Robert Middlekauff in his book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 argues the same thing:

"Although Americans entered the Revolt against Britain in several ways, their religion proved important in all of them, important even to the lukewarm and the indifferent. It did because, more than anything else in America, religion shaped culture. And different as the colonies were, they possessed a common culture--values, ideals, a way of looking at and responding to the world--which held them togather in the crisis of upheaval and war. To be sure, the churches in the colonies differed from one another. But beneath the surface their similarities were even more striking--a governance so dominated by laymen as to constitute a congregational democracy, a clergy much weaker than its European analogue, and a religious life marked by attenutated litugies and an emphasis on individual experience." --p. 49-50

I could keep going. The point is, to the "population," religion was very important. Culturaly important. These "laymen" that Middlekauff refers to were the majority. Thus, I go back to my original point: we were certainly a Christian nation at the founding based on the criteria I layed out, and I see no overwheling evidence that suggests that has changed significantly today.

[ChickenHawk]

This is truly a ridiculous argument. 3/4 of Americans consider themselves Christian so in that sense this is a Christian nation. On the other hand, the government is is specifically prohibited from establishing a religion and is required to protect the free exercise thereof. So in that sense it is not a Christian nation. It's all a matter of perspective really.

[RSLudlum]

Personally, I don't care if people consider this a 'christian nation' or not, as long as I am able to practice as I wish.

In MLK jr's words, who ever your god may or may not be:

"I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

[LibertyOfOne]

How 'bout you try really, really hard not to be an e-asshole? It'll take some effort, but I promise you that it's worth it.

I thought you wrote the book on how to be an e-asshole. Damn it! I want my money back from Amazon!

[Paulitician]

Obama is al Qaeda!

[qaxn]

Obama is al Qaeda!
al Qaeda is a terrorist organization dedicated to ejecting Israel and the United States and Europe from the Muslim world.
Sen. Barack Obama is a candidate for President of the United States.

I hope you learned something today. :)

[newyearsrevolution08]

al Qaeda is a terrorist organization dedicated to ejecting Israel and the United States and Europe from the Muslim world.
Sen. Barack Obama is a candidate for President of the United States.

I hope you learned something today. :)

Al Qaeda is the org to ejecting israel, us and europe from the muslim world.....

hmmn learning something doesn't always make it correct though bud.

[werdd]

Honestly, who cares about this socialist POS.

[apropos]

They came in the time period of the French revolution. The French came up with the idea of liberty. They got it because they were being oppressed by their monarchy. When we founded our country, we essentially stole their ideas.

Wrong. We declared our independence in 1776. The French Revolution occurred in 1789, and the different outcomes of those revolutions should say it all. If we just lifted the idea from France, why did one revolution end in gratuitous bloodshed, The Reign of Terror, and the rise of Napoleon, while the other revolution led to a much stabler society? Seems like a strange disparity if the ideas were exactly the same. One could argue France still hasn't recovered from its disastrous pursuit of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité".

[sophocles07]

We have to be some religion because atheism is just now getting up and going. Hmmm . . . I wonder. What could it be?

This does not follow from what you said. Nothing presently “necessitates” a religion.


We are certainly influenced by paganism in the United States. I am certain that there were other influences outside of Plato and Aristotle. Still, consider that the foundation for the religion of the Catholic Church was first established by St. Augustine on Plato's philosophy in the 4th century ACE while St. Thomas Aqinas established God's natural laws on Aristotle's works in the 13th century ACE. Challenging the influences of these 2 philosophers would be challenging the Catholic Church itself. Just ask Galileo.


I mentioned Cicero specifically. The Romans worshipped a goddess called Libertas. They were the real originators of (at least in the West) Law and Liberty.


Catholic protestants were the ones who started worshipping the Word of God out of the bible during the time of Martin Luther. Before the common practice was to worship the rituals that the Pope had established as God's authority on earth. The Catholics Christians during that time were not allowed to read the bible in a language other than Latin. Latin was well known to be a very poor interpretation of the New Testament.

That’s absolute bullshit. Jerome’s Vulgate is one of the best translations ever done. Much better than the King James Version—actually, they’re both aesthetically wonderful, but I prefer the Vulgate. Anyway, it was not because it was a “poor translation” that was the problem, the problem was that it was not translated into the vernacular for common people to read, therefore allowing a hierarchy of priests, etc., who served as middlemen. But—and you would know this if you had READ the Latin—it was not a “very poor translation.” That’s just fucking ridiculous.


Most of my knowledge about the American Puritans was learned in the prerequisite American literature classes that I had to take. The first text book on American literature dealt with American Puritanism beginning with the story about "The Scarlet Letter." Although only the earliest colonists were Puritan, their secular influence had a tremendous effect on the American heritage.

Let’s say this: they were not by any means concerned with liberty in the sense we mean it today. They were very, very oppressive in their religious—something you should have learned from the Hawthorne novel—and cannot be looked on as the originators of any sense of liberty (except in the sense of “we want to be free (liber) to enforce our own religion”).

Anyway: you didn’t answer my questions about the very wide, ridiculous claims you made earlier in the thread (all through the thread).


The Christian schools existed before Universities. Universities were later built after the 13th century to unravel the mysteries of Aristotle and most of Plato.

What exactly do you mean by “Christian schools”? I’m aware of the monastery as a prefiguration of the later University (as it existed under someone like Aquinas), but that the later formation was influenced strongly by the set-up the Greeks had (Academy).

If you mean monasteries, that was simply guys getting together and living a religious life with access to books.


Wrong. We declared our independence in 1776. The French Revolution occurred in 1789, and the different outcomes of those revolutions should say it all. If we just lifted the idea from France, why did one revolution end in gratuitous bloodshed, The Reign of Terror, and the rise of Napoleon, while the other revolution led to a much stabler society? Seems like a strange disparity if the ideas were exactly the same. One could argue France still hasn't recovered from its disastrous pursuit of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité".

Yeah, but the idea didn’t originate in 1789. Voltaire had been writing for 40 years or so (along with a bunch of other writers) on these ideas. You can’t measure this stuff by “Well that’s when the revolution HAPPENED! so that’s when the IDEA started!” It’s not that simple. History of Ideas is very complex thing.

As to influence. Most (all) were influenced by French writers, and it can only be said that revolution occurred in America with a different circumstances, and different views on revolution and its aims.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This is truly a ridiculous argument. 3/4 of Americans consider themselves Christian so in that sense this is a Christian nation. On the other hand, the government is is specifically prohibited from establishing a religion and is required to protect the free exercise thereof. So in that sense it is not a Christian nation. It's all a matter of perspective really.

Change! (Look straight at audience while looking both like a white and black man)
I am an American. (Turn your head and look serious)
Who am I? (Turn your head and look serious again)
Am I an atheist? (Again)
Well, do I worship a religion? (Stop and take a drink)
Am I a Hindu? (Turn your head and look serious)
Well, do I eat beef? (Turn your head and look serious again)
Am I a Muslim? (Do it again)
Well, do I pray to Allah? (And again)
Am I a Jew? (Stop and ponder because you need their votes)
Well, do I eat pork? (Give a little smile and a wink)
Am I a Buddhist? (Turn your head and look serious)
Well, do I meditate? (Turn your head and look serious again)
Just who am I? (Change)
I am an American. (Change)
I am nothing. (Change)
Change!
Change!
Change!
Chinge!
Chinga!
China!

[Peace&Freedom]

Most of the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing Christians, NOT deists. From M.E. Bradford's 'Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the U.S. Constitution' (1993), footnotes excluded, P.89, 91:

"...(Patrick) Henry made of his death a demonstration of his confidence in the promises of the Gospel..."O may we meet in heaven, to which the merits of Jesus will carry those who love and serve him." In the same spirit Henry declares in his will, "This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed." This sort of parting witness appears in other parting admonitions from the dying to the living. John Jay of New York writes in his will, "Unto Him who is the author and giver of good I render sincere and humble thanks for His merciful and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by his beloved Son." And unwaveringly orthodox George Mason bids his children farewell by declaring, "My soul I resign into the hands of the Almighty Creator, whose tender mercy's are all over His works, who hateth nothing He hath made...thro the merits of my blessed Savior for a remission of sins...."

"...The variety of surviving Christian witness in the papers and sayings of the Framers is indeed astonishing. Elias Boudinot of New Jersey was heavily involved in Christian missions and was the founder of the American Bible Society. Roger Sherman wrote a sermon of "New Light" divinity and was a ruling elder of his church. Richard Bassett rode joyfully with his former slaves to share in the enthusiasm of their singing on their way to Methodist Camp meetings. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina set aside money to evangelize the slaves and teach them to read Holy Scripture. Pinckey had learned as a child "to love Christ and the church" and distributed Bibles to blacks as President of the Charleston Bible Society. During the Revolution, Abraham Baldwin of Georgia served as chaplain in the American army. Earlier, he had been a tutor at Yale and in 1781 was offered the professorship of Divinity there."

"Luther Martin declared with regularity his devotion to "the sacred truths of the Christian religion." John Dickinson of Delaware wrote persuasive letters to youthful friends concerning the authority of Scripture and the soundness of Christian evidences. And both John Madison and Alexander Hamilton regularly led their households in the observance of family prayers. David Brearly of New Jersey and William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut devoted themselves to reorganizing the Episcopal Church in their states. John Witherspoon, erstwhile leader of the Scottish Turk and President of the College of New Jersey, gave himself to the education of a Presbyterian clergy and to the composition of treatises such as "The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ." And William Few of Georgia was a lively frontier Methodist during most of his political career..." Bradford also copiously documents that the debates on ratification of the Constitution by the states included abundant references to biblical doctrine and of the need to acknowledge God "to be an authority over the regime, the source of all legitimate political power....(P.92)."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I mentioned Cicero specifically. The Romans worshipped a goddess called Libertas. They were the real originators of (at least in the West) Law and Liberty.

The development of the definitive truth engines are what established law in a world lost in a disorder perpetuated by preists, sophists and poets.
The first definitive truth engine is commonly known as the Socratic "Dialectic" of asking "What is ?" (Socratic teaching method) in order to manufacture a quality truth from unorganized raw data. Plato's own truth engine that he coined the "Theory of the Forms" was used to narrow endless informal meaningless to formal "Best Principled Statements," while Aristotle's own truth engine called "Formal logic" reorganized confusion into a coherent conclusion by transforming fallicies into premises.
Plato described the extent of how cruel this disorderly time had become when in a dialogue he had his mouthpiece character Socrates asking a young man why he was turning in his father for impeity. Although it was a serious offense for which the young man was accusing his father, he was willing to do so out of simple obedience for Greek social norms. This contempt was demonstrated with much questioning by Socrates as to what the term "impiety" truly meant for it became quite clear that the young man didn't even understand the word's definition. So, law by itself is nothing as order by itself is nothing. One needs both order and law.


That’s absolute bullshit. Jerome’s Vulgate is one of the best translations ever done. Much better than the King James Version—actually, they’re both aesthetically wonderful, but I prefer the Vulgate. Anyway, it was not because it was a “poor translation” that was the problem, the problem was that it was not translated into the vernacular for common people to read, therefore allowing a hierarchy of priests, etc., who served as middlemen. But—and you would know this if you had READ the Latin—it was not a “very poor translation.” That’s just fucking ridiculous.

Well, what is undeniable then? The liberal Protestant Catholics began to worship the Word of God in the bible while the conservative Catholics continued worshipping the legal precedent rituals established by the Vatican? Martin Luther had the insight to see that the legal precedents established by the Pope as God's authority were in conflict with that which was written as the Word of God in the bible. How? He just bothered to read the bible.


Let’s say this: they were not by any means concerned with liberty in the sense we mean it today. They were very, very oppressive in their religious—something you should have learned from the Hawthorne novel—and cannot be looked on as the originators of any sense of liberty (except in the sense of “we want to be free (liber) to enforce our own religion”).

The Puritans floated across a bottomless ocean believing they were the symbolic woman in the book of Revelation who was escaping to a wilderness to avoid religious persecution.


What exactly do you mean by “Christian schools”? I’m aware of the monastery as a prefiguration of the later University (as it existed under someone like Aquinas), but that the later formation was influenced strongly by the set-up the Greeks had (Academy).

Christian schools would have been Platonic with math playing the part of science. While there would have been seperation between the arts and sciences, there would have been no seperation between the sciences themselves. That distinction was added to the schools later on as were the higher institutions of Universities when Arisotle was introduced to Western Europe in the 13th century.


If you mean monasteries, that was simply guys getting together and living a religious life with access to books.

It was customary for the first born to go into service for the King while the second born went into service for the Church.

[Ozwest]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins,

Get a grip.

Be a free thinker.

Jesus would love you for it.

[Kade]

Every significant form of human endeavor outside of knitting was a direct result of the Church. This is why they have basic courses in college so professors can steer naive students away from historical fallacy.

Wrong.

Every single major human achievement was performed outside of the church, and usually against the church's will. Every bit of progress has occurred, despite the anchor of religion attached to it, completely and utterly devoid of the dominating traditional reign of thought at the time.

Every human achievement was a heresy of it's time, even Bacon, and Newton, and Galileo.

Heresy.

Each new achievement, the genetic manipulations, cloning, advanced organic processing, nano-materials, most of the medical field, and evolutionary psychology, is in complete opposition to the current Religious Zeitgeist...

Like it has always been, the prime movers of society must drag the stagnating carcass of religion and faith behind it, changing the landscape, all the while allowing crooks and charlatans to emerge and proclaim the victories of mankind as their own.

You are no different. You have claimed, once again, the work of people who were once persecuted for their achievements, once it becomes suitably traditional and accepted to claim credit for them.

Where are the new religious protests of antibiotics? Lightning Rods? the plethora of technologies that "offended god's will".

Where is your Earth centricity now fools?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins,

Get a grip.

Be a free thinker.

Jesus would love you for it.

Sorry. Does this mean something?

[Ozwest]

Sorry. Does this mean something?

It means you are in a cult.

Free will. My son.

[Ozwest]

Sorry. Does this mean something?

When Religious leaders interpret teachings and effect your perspective on family and social life.

It is time for a reality check.

This is the difference between a cult and religious study.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Wrong.

Every single major human achievement was performed outside of the church, and usually against the church's will. Every bit of progress has occurred, despite the anchor of religion attached to it, completely and utterly devoid of the dominating traditional reign of thought at the time.

Every human achievement was a heresy of it's time, even Bacon, and Newton, and Galileo.

Heresy.

Each new achievement, the genetic manipulations, cloning, advanced organic processing, nano-materials, most of the medical field, and evolutionary psychology, is in complete opposition to the current Religious Zeitgeist...

Like it has always been, the prime movers of society must drag the stagnating carcass of religion and faith behind it, changing the landscape, all the while allowing crooks and charlatans to emerge and proclaim the victories of mankind as their own.

You are no different. You have claimed, once again, the work of people who were once persecuted for their achievements, once it becomes suitably traditional and accepted to claim credit for them.

Where are the new religious protests of antibiotics? Lightning Rods? the plethora of technologies that "offended god's will".

Where is your Earth centricity now fools?

Impiety killed most people. Socrates was sentenced to a voluntary suicide because of it. Galileo was persecuted because of the impeity he showed towards Aristotle and the Pope. Most of these rulers didn't know God enough to sentence people for impeity towards Him. They sentenced people to persecution not because of God but because they had the audacity to be impious towards power, nothing more nothing less.
The mistake you young people make is giving a religious face to this cruelty rather than a tyrant's face. This is just cruel tyrant stuff. A cruel tyrant is just a cruel tyrant. Don't believe me? Go look in the mirror.

[Kade]

Impiety killed most people. Socrates was sentenced to a voluntary suicide because of it. Galileo was persecuted because of the impeity he showed towards Aristotle and the Pope. Most of these rulers didn't know God enough to sentence people for impeity towards Him. They sentenced people to persecution not because of God but because they had the audacity to be impious towards power, nothing more nothing less.
The mistake you young people make is giving a religious face to this cruelty rather than a tyrant's face. This is just cruel tyrant stuff. A cruel tyrant is just a cruel tyrant. Don't believe me? Go look in the mirror.

So your only rebuttal is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It means you are in a cult.

Free will. My son.

continue . . .

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

When Religious leaders interpret teachings and effect your perspective on family and social life.

It is time for a reality check.

This is the difference between a cult and religious study.

continue . . .

[Ozwest]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins,

"The good Lord gave you a body that can stand almost anything. It's your mind you have to convince."

Vince Lombardi --

[Danke]

They didn't last long. But several of the States had official Christian religions.

[Ozwest]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins,

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle --

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So your only rebuttal is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?

I'm no longer a believer in selling empty boxes because we are swiftly marketing ourselves out of business as a nation. Right now we are down to pretty women selling to us the little crap we still manufature as a nation. Eventually when no one buys even that, we will be left with only the pretty women to sell.

[sophocles07]

The development of the definitive truth engines are what established law in a world lost in a disorder perpetuated by preists, sophists and poets.
The first definitive truth engine is commonly known as the Socratic "Dialectic" of asking "What is ?" (Socratic teaching method) in order to manufacture a quality truth from unorganized raw data. Plato's own truth engine that he coined the "Theory of the Forms" was used to narrow endless informal meaningless to formal "Best Principled Statements," while Aristotle's own truth engine called "Formal logic" reorganized confusion into a coherent conclusion by transforming fallicies into premises.
Plato described the extent of how cruel this disorderly time had become when in a dialogue he had his mouthpiece character Socrates asking a young man why he was turning in his father for impeity. Although it was a serious offense for which the young man was accusing his father, he was willing to do so out of simple obedience for Greek social norms. This contempt was demonstrated with much questioning by Socrates as to what the term "impiety" truly meant for it became quite clear that the young man didn't even understand the word's definition. So, law by itself is nothing as order by itself is nothing. One needs both order and law.

This is all sophistry. I don’t need lessons.


Well, what is undeniable then? The liberal Protestant Catholics began to worship the Word of God in the bible while the conservative Catholics continued worshipping the legal precedent rituals established by the Vatican? Martin Luther had the insight to see that the legal precedents established by the Pope as God's authority were in conflict with that which was written as the Word of God in the bible. How? He just bothered to read the bible.

I don’t know what “what is undeniable then” means. I’m simply stating some facts in the quote you presented, and an aesthetic opinion.


The Puritans floated across a bottomless ocean believing they were the symbolic woman in the book of Revelation who was escaping to a wilderness to avoid religious persecution.

Yes, and then they enforced religious systems on others. This is not liberty; it’s a kind of freedom, but it’s a Freedom to do what you want—institute your OWN SYSTEM (even if it oppresses those who disagree with your system). That is not liberty as we understand it today.


Christian schools would have been Platonic with math playing the part of science. While there would have been seperation between the arts and sciences, there would have been no seperation between the sciences themselves. That distinction was added to the schools later on as were the higher institutions of Universities when Arisotle was introduced to Western Europe in the 13th century.

Science is an art (techne, a “way of doing something”). You’re going to have to give some historical data for your statements. Saying Christian schools are Platonic seems to disroute your past claim of the Bible (as opposed to Greeks, other pagans) as source of much of our ideas.


It was customary for the first born to go into service for the King while the second born went into service for the Church.

What are you talking about? You seem incapable of commenting directly on anything I type.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins,

"The good Lord gave you a body that can stand almost anything. It's your mind you have to convince."

Vince Lombardi --

please continue . . .

[Ozwest]

please continue . . .

Are you having a go?

[Ozwest]

Or attempting to find your cerebral cortex?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This is all sophistry. I don’t need lessons.

Socrates: Can we teach a slave boy to improve his mind?
Socrates: Can the slave boy grow to learn to serve as a teacher so other slave boys can learn?
Socrates: Can the slave boy learn to be as smart as a prince?
Socrates: Can the slave boy learn to be free?
Socrates: Can the slave boy learn to be happy?


I don’t know what “what is undeniable then” means. I’m simply stating some facts in the quote you presented, and an aesthetic opinion.

After Martin Luther's intercession to God by way of a note nailed to the door of the Vatican, the liberal Protestant Catholics won the right to begin worshipping the Word of God out of the bible while the conservative Catholics continued in their worshipping of the legal precedent rituals established by the Vatican. Even today these conservative Catholics still worship the legal precedent rituals of the Vatican and the Pope over the actual Holy scripture in the bible.

Y
es, and then they enforced religious systems on others. This is not liberty; it’s a kind of freedom, but it’s a Freedom to do what you want—institute your OWN SYSTEM (even if it oppresses those who disagree with your system). That is not liberty as we understand it today.

Most of these Puritans died. The next invaders were the tyrant pilgrims. Why do you single out the Puritans as tyrants? Aren't we all capable of being tyrants? Why should I trust an atheist tyrant over a Christian one? A tyrant is just a tyrant.


Science is an art (techne, a “way of doing something”). You’re going to have to give some historical data for your statements. Saying Christian schools are Platonic seems to disroute your past claim of the Bible (as opposed to Greeks, other pagans) as source of much of our ideas.

The foundation of the Catholic religion was established by St. Augustine on Plato's philosophy. The Emperor Constantine did not want to become a Christian by converting into the weird cult of the already existing Christianity, so he invented a new religion he could control. So, yes, Christian schools were naturally Platonic. Plato the philosopher didn't fall out of favor as did Aristotle during the post Zenith Hellenistic age. Aristotle was sentenced to banishment after all. Plato believed firmly that math was the best science. The concept of natural philosophy, the birth of modern science, did not exist substantially until the time Aristotle's works were incorporated into the Catholic Church as God's natural laws during the 13th century Ace.


What are you talking about? You seem incapable of commenting directly on anything I type.

The second born in the family had little choice in what he or she was going to do with his or her life. It was generally expected that they serve in the Church while the first born child served the King. So, think of the power of the Church as second born power.

[Ozwest]

Steady on bro...

Don't reckon you are a bit intense?

For fucks sake, you are not an Oracle!

Leave the Cult. Now.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are you having a go?

We have yet to accumulate a complete paragraph of content . . .

[Ozwest]

[quote=Uncle Emanuel Watkins;1533647]We have yet to accumulate a complete paragraph of content . . .[/quot

You are the one advocating the remission of sin.

With the condition that the rest of us follow...

Sorry, but I am absolved.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[quote=Uncle Emanuel Watkins;1533647]We have yet to accumulate a complete paragraph of content . . .[/quot

You are the one advocating the remission of sin.

With the condition that the rest of us follow...

Sorry, but I am absolved.

My culture is Puritan. Your culture is Penal Colony. Is it any wonder that we might disagree?

[Ozwest]

[quote=Ozwest;1533675]

My culture is Puritan. Your culture is Penal Colony. Is it any wonder that we might disagree?

Yeah,

That would explain why you are a righteous prick.

[Patriot123]

You don't want to debate my last point, but took time to critique it. Cute

Read my post again carefully. I'm not suggesting that they were correct in their assertions that Enlightement ideas = Christian ideas. I simply pointed out that it was the popular thought. Argue with them, not with me.

You won't find too many scholarly accounts of the colonial and Revolutionary period that deny the "population" as culturaly Christian. Did you know that the Declaration of Independence was not the only "declaration"? Jefferson got his inspiration from anti-federalist George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights." He specifically mentions Christianianity and its benefits to society:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Also, there were over 90 state and local declarations before Jefferson's, many of them specifically mention God or Christianity. (see historian Pauline Maier's book American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence for a list--p. 217-223). Certainly many of these declarations that mention "God" or "Christianity" can be evidence that suggests a groundswell approval of Christianity among the "population."

Historian Gordon Wood, in his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution states:

"All along, of course, varieties of Protestantism had been a major adhesive force for ordinary Americans, often the principles source of community and order in their lives. But the Revolution had disrupted American Religion; it scattered congregations, destroyed church buildings, interupted the training of ministers, and politicized people's thinking. The religious yearnings of common people, however, remained strong, stronger than any of the revolutionary leaders realized. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century powerful currents of popular religious feeling flowed beneath the genteel and secular surface of public life, awaiting only the developing democratic revolution to break through the rationalistic and skeptical crust of the Enlightenment and sweep over and transform the landscape of the country. The consequences were far-reaching, not just for the mass of ordinary people but for many of the enlightened revolutionary leaders themselves, who were frightened and bewildered by this democratic revolution." --p.329

Tocqueville observes the same phenomena all through his book Democracy in America.

Historian Robert Middlekauff in his book The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 argues the same thing:

"Although Americans entered the Revolt against Britain in several ways, their religion proved important in all of them, important even to the lukewarm and the indifferent. It did because, more than anything else in America, religion shaped culture. And different as the colonies were, they possessed a common culture--values, ideals, a way of looking at and responding to the world--which held them togather in the crisis of upheaval and war. To be sure, the churches in the colonies differed from one another. But beneath the surface their similarities were even more striking--a governance so dominated by laymen as to constitute a congregational democracy, a clergy much weaker than its European analogue, and a religious life marked by attenutated litugies and an emphasis on individual experience." --p. 49-50

I could keep going. The point is, to the "population," religion was very important. Culturaly important. These "laymen" that Middlekauff refers to were the majority. Thus, I go back to my original point: we were certainly a Christian nation at the founding based on the criteria I layed out, and I see no overwheling evidence that suggests that has changed significantly today.
Funny how you just dismissed my post as not relevant and not hitting the target. It most certainly did. You, sir, are a religious rightest. I'm not going to even bother reading all of the above quotes because they are likely taken out of context as there is overwhelming evidence that supports that our founders were Deists. Historians support this. Is it not surprising that the only ones who support the fact that our founders were Christians are members of the Christian right? If you are to affiliate this country with any such religion or religious movement, it should be the Freemasons. It's a disgrace that the Christian extreme right is trying to make a country who was the ONLY country that was not affiliated with any religion, a country that was so damn great because everyone was equal and didn't have to worry about being in a nation with an allegiance to one religion, has to go and twist history. I'm afraid to ask. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Because you seem like the typical neo-Conservative, in all honesty. I'm not trying to commit an ad-hominem fallacy there, it's just an observation. Tell me, why is it that we have Freemason symbols on the back of a dollar bill and not, oh, a cross? You are claiming that his country was founded on Christian roots. So where's the symbols? The cross? Jesus? There are none. Those are Freemason symbols. Our founders were Freemasons and Deists.
Here are some links which support my argument, too.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://www.lawfulgov.org/deists.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/53/04700845/0470084553.pdf



Wrong. We declared our independence in 1776. The French Revolution occurred in 1789, and the different outcomes of those revolutions should say it all. If we just lifted the idea from France, why did one revolution end in gratuitous bloodshed, The Reign of Terror, and the rise of Napoleon, while the other revolution led to a much stabler society? Seems like a strange disparity if the ideas were exactly the same. One could argue France still hasn't recovered from its disastrous pursuit of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité".
Read what I said, please. I said that we stole the idea from the French. I didn't say that we stole it during their revolution, as that would make no sense. We simply stole the idea from them. Our founders were greatly influenced by French minds who supported the idea of liberty, and historians agree with this. They were greatly influenced by French minds. They [the ideas] came before the French revolution occurred.

[familydog]

Funny how you just dismissed my post as not relevant and not hitting the target. It most certainly did. You, sir, are a religious rightest. I'm not going to even bother reading all of the above quotes because they are likely taken out of context as there is overwhelming evidence that supports that our founders were Deists. Historians support this. Is it not surprising that the only ones who support the fact that our founders were Christians are members of the Christian right? If you are to affiliate this country with any such religion or religious movement, it should be the Freemasons. It's a disgrace that the Christian extreme right is trying to make a country who was the ONLY country that was not affiliated with any religion, a country that was so damn great because everyone was equal and didn't have to worry about being in a nation with an allegiance to one religion, has to go and twist history. I'm afraid to ask. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Because you seem like the typical neo-Conservative, in all honesty. I'm not trying to commit an ad-hominem fallacy there, it's just an observation. Tell me, why is it that we have Freemason symbols on the back of a dollar bill and not, oh, a cross? You are claiming that his country was founded on Christian roots. So where's the symbols? The cross? Jesus? There are none. Those are Freemason symbols. Our founders were Freemasons and Deists.
Here are some links which support my argument, too.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://www.lawfulgov.org/deists.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/53/04700845/0470084553.pdf



Read what I said, please. I said that we stole the idea from the French. I didn't say that we stole it during their revolution, as that would make no sense. We simply stole the idea from them. Our founders were greatly influenced by French minds who supported the idea of liberty, and historians agree with this. They were greatly influenced by French minds. They [the ideas] came before the French revolution occurred.

I stopped reading at the bolded. Why should I read what you put in front of me if you won't read what I put in front of you?

Maybe you should read them and debunk the quotes rather than dissmissing them.

The quotes are by well known and respected historians of the Revolutionary period. The authors have no agenda.

Like I said, the "population" was culturaly Christian.

[sophocles07]

After Martin Luther's intercession to God by way of a note nailed to the door of the Vatican, the liberal Protestant Catholics won the right to begin worshipping the Word of God out of the bible while the conservative Catholics continued in their worshipping of the legal precedent rituals established by the Vatican. Even today these conservative Catholics still worship the legal precedent rituals of the Vatican and the Pope over the actual Holy scripture in the bible.

Yes, I know. But why are we discussing this? You seem off topic.


Most of these Puritans died. The next invaders were the tyrant pilgrims. Why do you single out the Puritans as tyrants? Aren't we all capable of being tyrants? Why should I trust an atheist tyrant over a Christian one? A tyrant is just a tyrant.

Nowhere have I “singled out” Puritans. You brought the subject up, saying they were the source of the idea of liberty (along with other Christians). I’m answering that. Obviously many types of people can be tyrants.


The second born in the family had little choice in what he or she was going to do with his or her life. It was generally expected that they serve in the Church while the first born child served the King. So, think of the power of the Church as second born power.

Again, I see no relevance of this.


You have still provided no evidence for your claims for Christianity in this thread. Noted.

[Theocrat]

For once, I couldn't agree more with Obama. Funny how the neoconservatives are going after him for saying, "America is not a Christian nation." Honestly, this is really getting me po'd. We are NOT a Christian nation. And to hear morons like Hannity and Savage say that we are is a disgrace. What made this country so great? Why did so many people immigrate to this country? Because America wasn't some quasi religious state bent on making everyone a member of their own religion. It wasn't a nation where you were expected to bow down to another religion. It was a nation where everyone was equal. Where everyone had rights. Not some religious crap nation. Why is it that the terms Christianity, bible, Jesus, Moses, etcetera aren't in the Constitution? Why did none of the founders express that this country was a religious nation? It's disgusting what these neocons are doing to this nation. Moreso than the liberals. We are NOT a religious country.

Like most of the time, Obama is clearly ignorant on this subject. There is so much evidence that our Founders were not only religious (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html), but they also inculcated their religious beliefs (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html) into the public arena.

I can't believe people are still doubting and debating this subject. You God-haters just don't know when to quit, do you? You just can't handle the facts, can you? No wonder our nation is on the downfall. Ignorance truly destroys.

[Ozwest]

That separation of church and state.

Remember...

Founding Fathers?

[Acala]

Eventually when no one buys even that, we will be left with only the pretty women to sell.

At last my lifelong dream will come true!

[Kade]

I'm no longer a believer in selling empty boxes because we are swiftly marketing ourselves out of business as a nation. Right now we are down to pretty women selling to us the little crap we still manufature as a nation. Eventually when no one buys even that, we will be left with only the pretty women to sell.

I'm surprised the Market Purists don't attack you for this trash.

If there is a need, there is a market. If we need quality goods, people will sell quality goods. If we need cheap goods, people will sell cheap goods.

Besides, pretty women are always in need.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes, I know. But why are we discussing this? You seem off topic.

Because of words written in the Word of God, the Protestant Catholics Declared Independence from having to worship the legal precedent rituals created by the Pope and the Vatican.


Nowhere have I “singled out” Puritans. You brought the subject up, saying they were the source of the idea of liberty (along with other Christians). I’m answering that. Obviously many types of people can be tyrants.

Because of words written in the Word of God, the Puritan Christians Declared Independence from having to worship the legal precedent rituals created by the King of England and the Anglican Church of England.


Again, I see no relevance of this.

If the first born went into service for the King, the second born went into service for the Church and the rest of the children were left to partake in the necessary illegal business of survival on property 100% owned by the King, then where is there any room left for liberty? Seems to me working for the King and the Church allowed the older children a certain degree of liberty. At least the businesses they were partaking in were legal.

[sophocles07]

Because of words written in the Word of God, the Protestant Catholics Declared Independence from having to worship the legal precedent rituals created by the Pope and the Vatican.

Yeah, I'm sure this has never ever ever happened when two parties differed on doctrine. Ever.

Trying to trace the idea of liberty to such an act is completely fucking ludicrous.


If the first born went into service for the King, the second born went into service for the Church and the rest of the children were left to partake in the necessary illegal business of survival on property 100% owned by the King, then where is there any room left for liberty? Seems to me working for the King and the Church allowed the older children a certain degree of liberty. At least the businesses they were partaking in were legal.


Again: this has absolutely no relevance here.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm surprised the Market Purists don't attack you for this trash.

If there is a need, there is a market. If we need quality goods, people will sell quality goods. If we need cheap goods, people will sell cheap goods.

Besides, pretty women are always in need.

What if the need is happiness? What if the need is to have Union employees acting like rich, fat executives? Ha ha! Stupid fat workers smoking cigars and acting like they are rich fat executives! Why can't we all get the 3 month vacations? The air conditioning? The big house with 2 1/2 baths? The his or her lamberginis in a 3 car garage? Why can't we all have a pool in the back yard? Why can't we all have our own servants? Why can't we all have not just shitty healthcare but the highest priced healthcare? Why can't we all have our own personal physician like President George Bush?
We need to take care of our happiness. Screw the market. Sometimes we need to take the food off of the fat banker's plates to redistribute it to the empty plates. We are a nation of the people after all. Not a nation of bankers. Let the bankers go to Switzerland.
We need to improve the standard of living for Americans! Screw the market.

[Kade]

What if the need is happiness? What if the need is to have Union employees acting like rich, fat executives? Ha ha! Stupid fat workers smoking cigars and acting like they are rich fat executives! Why can't we all get the 3 month vacations? The air conditioning? The big house with 2 1/2 baths? The his or her lamberginis in a 3 car garage? Why can't we all have a pool in the back yard? Why can't we all have our own servants? Why can't we all have not just shitty healthcare but the highest priced healthcare? Why can't we all have our own personal physician like President George Bush?
We need to take care of our happiness. Screw the market. Sometimes we need to take the food off of the fat banker's plates to redistribute it to the empty plates. We are a nation of the people after all. Not a nation of bankers. Let the bankers go to Switzerland.
We need to improve the standard of living for Americans! Screw the market.

Screenshot.

Someone, anyone, please, please tell me you see the irony with this...

*sigh*

Do I just have a reputation here that allows me to be attacked on anything, even my advocacy for something I'm usually attacked for being against?!

Oh my head hurts....

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yeah, I'm sure this has never ever ever happened when two parties differed on doctrine. Ever.

Trying to trace the idea of liberty to such an act is completely fucking ludicrous.

Okay. I guess assuming that we are a Christian nation is also fucking ludicrous?
Certainly this is a comedy act.


Again: this has absolutely no relevance here.

I don't think there ever was any relevance. My attempt was to establish the Church as members made up of the second born rather than just a lot of boys who like to bond together while praying about nonsense.

[sophocles07]

Okay. I guess assuming that we are a Christian nation is also fucking ludicrous?
Certainly this is a comedy act.

Sophistry. You did not answer my point. You have provided no evidence for your outrageous claims for Christianity throughout this thread.

PUT UP OR SHUT (THE FUCK) UP.


I don't think there ever was any relevance. My attempt was to establish the Church as members made up of the second born rather than just a lot of boys who like to bond together while praying about nonsense.


I have no idea why this was even brought up. I certainly never mentioned it. I was talking about monasteries (vide: Benedict &co.) as a prefiguration of University. You seemed to have had too much cough syrup today and are bitching about firstborns and secondborns from 8 hundred years ago. Next thing you'll be declaiming Genealogies out of Genesis.

[Ozwest]

What's the big deal?

Do Uncle Watkins and Theocrat want to live in a country where Religion is compulsory?

Which of you two do I call Mullah?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Screenshot.

Someone, anyone, please, please tell me you see the irony with this...

*sigh*

Do I just have a reputation here that allows me to be attacked on anything, even my advocacy for something I'm usually attacked for being against?!

Oh my head hurts....

It just seems to me the market experts know more about what is in their best interest than what is in the best interest of the people. This is THE nation of the people so I invite anyone out there who doesn't like it to leave.

[Kade]

It just seems to me the market experts know more about what is in their best interest than what is in the best interest of the people. This is THE nation of the people so I invite anyone out there who doesn't like it to leave.

Here is a quick set of principals:

We are not a Christian Nation.
A mixed economy is not a violation of anyone's freedoms.
The Republican Party has done more to damage liberty than any party in this history of this country.
We are really run by corporatists and very wealthy, powerful, interest groups.
A Civil liberty and social liberal government and an open, transparent society are the best current political philosophies for maximum freedoms.



It seems for each person who attacks me from one end of the spectrum, I start getting it from behind as well.

[Indy4Chng]

Two points if you can tell me where that's from. ;)

I like how you left out this:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Which clearly demonstrates religious beliefs in justifying thier declaration of independence.

[Ozwest]

Who will be the Mullah?

Is it Theocrat or Uncle Emanuel Watkins?

"The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law."

Aristotle --

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sophistry. You did not answer my point. You have provided no evidence for your outrageous claims for Christianity throughout this thread.

PUT UP OR SHUT (THE FUCK) UP.

First off, You don't understand the definition of sophistry. Sophy = wisdom; ist = er; ry = y. So you are actually saying wisdomery. The rhetoric of the sophist orator always delved deeply into why the abscence of truth is the real truth. Like "No truth exists that America is a Christian nation!" That kind of thing.


I have no idea why this was even brought up. I certainly never mentioned it. I was talking about monasteries (vide: Benedict &co.) as a prefiguration of University. You seemed to have had too much cough syrup today and are bitching about firstborns and secondborns from 8 hundred years ago. Next thing you'll be declaiming Genealogies out of Genesis.

Critics always like to take form and informalize it into crap. So, I took your crap and formalized it with meaning. Like "The Church was traditionally empowered by the second born from each family."

[Kade]

I like how you left out this:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Which clearly demonstrates religious beliefs in justifying thier declaration of independence.

And which beliefs would those be... give me a break. If an evangelical wrote those words today, is there any doubt what it would say? That alone is proof that your point is wildly invalid.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Here is a quick set of principals:

We are not a Christian Nation.
A mixed economy is not a violation of anyone's freedoms.
The Republican Party has done more to damage liberty than any party in this history of this country.
We are really run by corporatists and very wealthy, powerful, interest groups.
A Civil liberty and social liberal government and an open, transparent society are the best current political philosophies for maximum freedoms.



It seems for each person who attacks me from one end of the spectrum, I start getting it from behind as well.

The national dinner table is going to have the great King sitting with the worthless untouchable. The worthless untouchable is someone considered even less than a slave. In past history, he or she was banished even by the slave. So, this is the glory. This is the self evident truth and the unalienable right that we have written onto the conscience of our human souls. When the untouchable thirsts, the King either has to change his ways or he is banished from the table as a tyrant. The tyrant goes in the American system, not the untouchable.

[Patriot123]

I stopped reading at the bolded. Why should I read what you put in front of me if you won't read what I put in front of you?

Maybe you should read them and debunk the quotes rather than dissmissing them.

The quotes are by well known and respected historians of the Revolutionary period. The authors have no agenda.

Like I said, the "population" was culturaly Christian.

Are you kidding? I read all of what you wrote. Don't try to shift the blame. And if thats' so, what about the quotes I put forward?
And the population was not culturally Christian. Again, and I feel I'm repeating myself over and over again, only a mere seven percent of the American population was a member of a church. The population was NOT culturally Christian.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Who will be the Mullah?

Is it Theocrat or Uncle Emanuel Watkins?

"The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law."

Aristotle --

You better look up the definition of Aristocracy. Mexico is an Aristocracy. Aristotle actually fell from Socrates' vision which isn't surprising because he was willing to go on living in a primitive society while he wasn't willing to die for his beliefs. While Socrates was contemplating serving the slaves as a midwife philosophizing teacher, Aristotle later regressed back to the old primitive caste system where he was employed as the kind of teacher who trained the prince to take his rightful place on his father's throne. Therefore, Alexander the Great! Boo!

[Ozwest]

You better look up the definition of Aristocracy. Mexico is an Aristocracy. Aristotle actually fell from Socrates' vision which isn't surprising because he was willing to go on living in a primitive society while he wasn't willing to die for his beliefs. While Socrates was contemplating serving the slaves as a midwife philosophizing teacher, Aristotle later regressed back to the old primitive caste system where he was employed as the kind of teacher who trained the prince to take his rightful place on his father's throne. Therefore, Alexander the Great! Boo!

Yeah right,

Thanks for the history lesson. You are a font.

I prefer a Republic.

Not a Theocracy.

That did not suit the Founding Fathers.

And "God Forbid," dickheads like you will never get your way.

[familydog]

Are you kidding? I read all of what you wrote. Don't try to shift the blame. And if thats' so, what about the quotes I put forward?
And the population was not culturally Christian. Again, and I feel I'm repeating myself over and over again, only a mere seven percent of the American population was a member of a church. The population was NOT culturally Christian.

I'm not shifting anything. You said you weren't going to read those quotes then went on to attack me for no reason. Our conversation was fairly civil until you decided to question my support for Ron Paul and accuse me and my sources of being some nutty Christian rightist. None of which has no basis in reality. I'm sorry that you feel so insecure in your beliefs that you can't continue with civil discourse, and instead feel the need to attack me personally.

In spite of how rude and immature your previous post was, I decided to read through your links. I'm left with the question: so what? It does not debunk my argument. I'm not suggesting that Franklin or Jefferson or Washington were flaming Christians or even Chrstians at all. I'm arguing that the vast majority of the people in the colonies were. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest otherwise. Again, because the majoirty of our founders (I use that term loosely--refering to all people that participated in the Revolution in one way or another) were Christians, and Christian culture was important to their lives, I don't see why we couldn't be considered a "Christian nation" at the founding. Your sources only point to the few founders at the top. I'm pointing to the millions of founders at the bottom.

I also find it quite ironic that you are attacking my sources for being bias (without any evidence) yet you choose to use sources that aren't exactly objective themselves. I stand by the evidence I put forth, and no matter how many times you attack me, I won't change my opinion until you debunk what I put forth.

Also, can you please provide me with a primary source backing up your 7% claim?

[Jerkface]

There is no such thing as a Christian nation. True Christianity is deeply personal and individualistic.

[sophocles07]

First off, You don't understand the definition of sophistry. Sophy = wisdom; ist = er; ry = y. So you are actually saying wisdomery. The rhetoric of the sophist orator always delved deeply into why the abscence of truth is the real truth. Like "No truth exists that America is a Christian nation!" That kind of thing.

I can read ancient Greek, I’m aware of the term. It is used in a derogatory sense—one who speaks in rhetorical blinders to avoid the issue.


Critics always like to take form and informalize it into crap. So, I took your crap and formalized it with meaning. Like "The Church was traditionally empowered by the second born from each family."

I have no idea what you are talking about. Look back at the point at which this originally rose up.

You said “Christian schools.” I said, What are you referring to? Monasteries, which prefigured the University? You said: the second born/first born blah blah blah. It has nothing to do with anything.

Now: do you have any proof of your claims for Christianity or not? Stop avoiding the issue.


You better look up the definition of Aristocracy. Mexico is an Aristocracy. Aristotle actually fell from Socrates' vision which isn't surprising because he was willing to go on living in a primitive society while he wasn't willing to die for his beliefs. While Socrates was contemplating serving the slaves as a midwife philosophizing teacher, Aristotle later regressed back to the old primitive caste system where he was employed as the kind of teacher who trained the prince to take his rightful place on his father's throne. Therefore, Alexander the Great! Boo!

Mexico is not an aristocracy (i.e., what the fuck are you talking about?).

It’s clear from your comments that you haven’t read Socrates very sufficiently. In Xenophon or Plato.

[Mesogen]

Ok. Iraq was a Muslim nation with a secular government. 95% of their population was Muslim while the government did not enforce Islam (at least not like they do in Saudi Arabia or Iran.)

Soviet Russia was a Christian nation with an atheistic government.

The United States is a Christian nation with a secular government. (80% or so consider themselves Christian, while the government does not enforce Christianity.)

[Theocrat]

Yeah right,

Thanks for the history lesson. You are a font.

I prefer a Republic.

Not a Theocracy.

That did not suit the Founding Fathers.

And "God Forbid," dickheads like you will never get your way.

A true republic is established on the rule of law. The rule of law is based on absolute standards of morality and justice provided by a Lawgiver. That Lawgiver is God (not impersonal nature), and that's essentially what a theocracy is. It is the rule of God by means of His revealed law, and governments and law itself are to be based on that law. Our government is not based on the principles of "self-reliant, human autonomous, majority opinion." It is based on the rule of an eternal and established law from God Who gives us our rights and ordains government to protect and preserve those rights, through God-fearing representatives who possess wisdom and righteousness to make law that honors God and His creation.

[Kade]

A true republic is established on the rule of law. The rule of law is based on absolute standards of morality and justice provided by a Lawgiver. That Lawgiver is God (not impersonal nature), and that's essentially what a theocracy is. It is the rule of God by means of His revealed law, and governments and law itself are to be based on that law. Our government is not based on the principles of "self-reliant, human autonomous, majority opinion." It is based on the rule of an eternal and established law from God Who gives us our rights and ordains government to protect and preserve those rights, through God-fearing representatives who possess wisdom and righteousness to make law that honors God and His creation.

Pretend for a second that you actually realized there were no gods.....

Can you see yourself and the insanity you represent? Is that even possible for you conceive? Just pretend... See it.

[Acala]

I am going to try and find points of agreement here because I think I have developed an anti-Kade bias that I want to get away from.


Here is a quick set of principals:

We are not a Christian Nation..

Agree, if you mean that the Constitution is secular and government should be secular and many people who live here are not Christians. Many MORE people who live here are Christians, but so what? Majority rule is just another kind of tyranny. People should keep their religions to themselves.


mixed economy is not a violation of anyone's freedoms..

If you mean an economy where the government gets to take my wealth by force and give it to someone else, that seems like a pretty serious violation of my freedom. You may be able to defend it effectively in some way, but saying that it does not violate my freedom is simply false.


The Republican Party has done more to damage liberty than any party in this history of this country...

The only way I can calculate this is by tallying Presidents. Top ten Worst Presidents in history, from a liberty standpoint, would be: Lincoln (R), Teddy Roosevelt (R), Woodrow Wilson (D), Herbert Hoover (R), FDR (D), Harry Truman (D), LBJ (D), Richard Nixon (R), BushI (R), and BushII(R).

The Republicans win, so I agree. But the destruction of liberty has been largely a bipartisan affair.


We are really run by corporatists and very wealthy, powerful, interest groups....

Agree.


A Civil liberty and social liberal government and an open, transparent society are the best current political philosophies for maximum freedoms.....

Not sure exactly what it means, but if it means domestic socialism with a gentle foreign policy and protection for non-economic liberty at home, I disagree that this is the best for maximum freedom. Socialism is a severe and persistent rot that destroys liberty. Being allowed to do what you want with the fruits of your labor and trade as you see fit are extremely important freedoms as well as being the engine of human prosperity.


So I agreed with you more than I disagreed with you. Not that you care! Hahahahaha!

[Theocrat]

Pretend for a second that you actually realized there were no gods.....

Can you see yourself and the insanity you represent? Is that even possible for you conceive? Just pretend... See it.

Are you asking me to be irrational, Kade?

[Patriot123]

-double post, please delete-

[Patriot123]

I like how you left out this:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Which clearly demonstrates religious beliefs in justifying thier declaration of independence.

Oh, you're absolutely right, I should have certainly included that. That proves my point even more that they were Deists. They didn't mention Christianity, Jesus, the cross or any other religious crap in there that is not associated with Deism. Thanks for pointing that out. I certainly should have included that portion ;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[Kade]

Oh, you're absolutely right, I should have certainly included that. That proves my point even more that they were Deists. They didn't mention Christianity, Jesus, the cross or any other religious crap in there that is not associated with Deism. Thanks for pointing that out. I certainly should have included that portion ;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I commented on this as well... anyone who is familiar with our current insane mindset here in America knows that if an Evangelical wrote the Declaration or the Constitution today, it would be filled with a noun, an adjective, and Jesus Christ.

The fact that they specifically left out the name of Jesus shows that they DO NOT share the same brutal mental insanity our country wallows in....

[Patriot123]

I commented on this as well... anyone who is familiar with our current insane mindset here in America knows that if an Evangelical wrote the Declaration or the Constitution today, it would be filled with a noun, an adjective, and Jesus Christ.

The fact that they specifically left out the name of Jesus shows that they DO NOT share the same brutal mental insanity our country wallows in....

Oh, exactly. If the evangelical rightist movement were to write anything today, political or not, it would contain the words/phrases "Jesus, cross, second coming, bible and infidels" in each paragraph. In all honesty, I feel as though I can't go anywhere without seeing said words. It's sickening what this country has come to. I hate Obama with a passion as I do with McCain, but if there's one thing I agree with him on it's this. Religion only serves to separate us.

[Theocrat]

Oh, you're absolutely right, I should have certainly included that. That proves my point even more that they were Deists. They didn't mention Christianity, Jesus, the cross or any other religious crap in there that is not associated with Deism. Thanks for pointing that out. I certainly should have included that portion ;)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

What you fail to understand is that it was understood that our Founders were referring to the Christian God when they wrote many of their documents mentioning Him in it. You can't just take these passages out of their literary and historical contexts. When I post on these forums and use the term "God," you all automatically know I'm referring to the God of the Bible. I don't have to qualify the term every single time it's used. The same goes with our Founders. If you read their other writings and notes, it's easy to see that they were referring to the Christian God. The Deistic conception of God was in the minority.

The Declaration of Independence does not refer to a Deistic god. Deistic gods don't "endow" nor "entitle" anything upon their subjects because Deistic gods by definition are non-interventionist towards the universe. They leave the universe to itself and the creatures therein. So, I think your analysis of the "God" mentioned in the DOI being a Deistic conception is in contextual error.

[Kade]

What you fail to understand is that it was understood that our Founders were referring to the Christian God when they wrote many of their documents mentioning Him in it. You can't just take this passages out of their literary and historical contexts. When I post on these forums and use the term "God," you all automatically know I'm referring to the God of the Bible. I don't have to qualify the term every single time it's used. The same goes with our Founders. If you read their other writings and notes, it's easy to see that they were referring to the Christian God. The Deistic conception of God was in the minority.

The Declaration of Independence does not refer to a Deistic god. Deistic gods don't "endow" nor "entitle" anything upon their subjects because Deistic gods by definition are non-interventionist towards the universe. They leave the universe to itself and the creatures therein. So, I think your analysis of the "God" mentioned in the DOI being a Deistic conception is in contextual error.

No, they didn't. You've been owned on this front before Theocrat. No need to revisit it, and embarrass yourself again... The only founders you quote are ones who had the least amount of historical value in context...

[Patriot123]

I'm not shifting anything. You said you weren't going to read those quotes then went on to attack me for no reason. Our conversation was fairly civil until you decided to question my support for Ron Paul and accuse me and my sources of being some nutty Christian rightist. None of which has no basis in reality. I'm sorry that you feel so insecure in your beliefs that you can't continue with civil discourse, and instead feel the need to attack me personally.

In spite of how rude and immature your previous post was, I decided to read through your links. I'm left with the question: so what? It does not debunk my argument. I'm not suggesting that Franklin or Jefferson or Washington were flaming Christians or even Chrstians at all. I'm arguing that the vast majority of the people in the colonies were. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest otherwise. Again, because the majoirty of our founders (I use that term loosely--refering to all people that participated in the Revolution in one way or another) were Christians, and Christian culture was important to their lives, I don't see why we couldn't be considered a "Christian nation" at the founding. Your sources only point to the few founders at the top. I'm pointing to the millions of founders at the bottom.

I also find it quite ironic that you are attacking my sources for being bias (without any evidence) yet you choose to use sources that aren't exactly objective themselves. I stand by the evidence I put forth, and no matter how many times you attack me, I won't change my opinion until you debunk what I put forth.

Also, can you please provide me with a primary source backing up your 7% claim?
...you need a source for common knowledge? Here's one soure I had bookmarked.
http://freethought.homestead.com/America.html

only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.


You know, honestly. If you want to value your religion over your country, move to Poland. Move to the Vatican. Move to Rome. But whatever you do, don't try to change the fact that this country is the only country that does not have an allegiance to one religion over another. That's what made this country so damn great. That all men are created equal. Those are the principles which this country was founded upon. Not "yay for religion, we're loyal to one over the other like 99% of the worlds nations." Don't you get it? I don't think you do. America is the safe haven from all of the crap in the world. From all of the religious nut jobs. It's the one nation where, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal. It's the one damn nation that doesn't call itself a ______ nation. It's the one nation that you can be proud of, that you can call your own, without having to be a member of blank religion. Well, at least that's what it once was before the evangelical rightists came into play, right?

[Theocrat]

You know, honestly. If you want to value your religion over your country, move to Poland. Move to the Vatican. Move to Rome. But whatever you do, don't try to change the fact that this country is the only country that does not have an allegiance to one religion over another. That's what made this country so damn great. That all men are created equal. Those are the principles which this country was founded upon. Not "yay for religion, we're loyal to one over the other like 99% of the worlds nations." Don't you get it? I don't think you do. America is the safe haven from all of the crap in the world. From all of the religious nut jobs. It's the one nation where, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal. It's the one damn nation that doesn't call itself a ______ nation. It's the one nation that you can be proud of, that you can call your own, without having to be a member of blank religion. Well, at least that's what it once was before the evangelical rightists came into play, right?

History (http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html) is against you, "Patriot"123. Stop forcing your "atheist" interpretation upon our nation's history.

[Patriot123]

What you fail to understand is that it was understood that our Founders were referring to the Christian God when they wrote many of their documents mentioning Him in it. You can't just take these passages out of their literary and historical contexts. When I post on these forums and use the term "God," you all automatically know I'm referring to the God of the Bible. I don't have to qualify the term every single time it's used. The same goes with our Founders. If you read their other writings and notes, it's easy to see that they were referring to the Christian God. The Deistic conception of God was in the minority.

The Declaration of Independence does not refer to a Deistic god. Deistic gods don't "endow" nor "entitle" anything upon their subjects because Deistic gods by definition are non-interventionist towards the universe. They leave the universe to itself and the creatures therein. So, I think your analysis of the "God" mentioned in the DOI being a Deistic conception is in contextual error.

Begging the Question Fallacy.

You have no way of knowing whether or not they were referring to the Christian G-d or not. You're assuming without any facts. If they were in fact referring to a Christian god, source it. Otherwise it's false. They were referring to natures laws and natures god. This is closer to Deism than Christianity by far. And no, I would want to know what god you're referring to. Would it be the Muslim God or the Jewish God? The Greek God or the Roman God? However I would know if there was context. For example, if you had the words Jesus or bible laced in there. They did not have this in the Declaration of Independence. As context clues, they did have nature and god. So due to the context, we must assume it is the Deist idea of god. Not the Christian idea.

[Patriot123]

History (http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html) is against you, "Patriot"123. Stop forcing your "atheist" interpretation upon our nation's history.

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

A proper rebuttal with proper sources plus explanations and facts might hep you a bit on that one. God is indeed in state constitutions, however they do not refer to a specific god. Beggging the Question Fallacy.

EDIT: Two states have the term "Christianity" in them. Two out of forty eight. Two out of thirteen colonies.

[Theocrat]

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

A proper rebuttal with proper sources plus explanations and facts might hep you a bit on that one.

You don't even understand logic. That was not an ad hominem argument! I did provide a source for my evidence. Did you read the link?!

You've made some claims on here, too, without providing evidences and sources. I'll do the same when you start following your own advice.

[Patriot123]

Read my edit, please.

[familydog]

...you need a source for common knowledge? Here's one soure I had bookmarked.
http://freethought.homestead.com/America.html



You know, honestly. If you want to value your religion over your country, move to Poland. Move to the Vatican. Move to Rome. But whatever you do, don't try to change the fact that this country is the only country that does not have an allegiance to one religion over another. That's what made this country so damn great. That all men are created equal. Those are the principles which this country was founded upon. Not "yay for religion, we're loyal to one over the other like 99% of the worlds nations." Don't you get it? I don't think you do. America is the safe haven from all of the crap in the world. From all of the religious nut jobs. It's the one nation where, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal. It's the one damn nation that doesn't call itself a ______ nation. It's the one nation that you can be proud of, that you can call your own, without having to be a member of blank religion. Well, at least that's what it once was before the evangelical rightists came into play, right?

First of all, I asked for a primary source. That is not a primary source. Please find me one if you want your statistic to mean anything.

I have no idea what you are trying to argue. I simply pointed to historical evidence...by actual historians that shows the importance of Christianity on the layperson. You have not refuted that.

You're going off on this crazy tangent about how our government is suppose to be secular and you're implying that I want some sort of theocracy. That has nothing at all to do with me and what I am arguing.

Take a deep breath. Relax okay? I am simply arguing the historical record. I'm not arguing that we should be a religious state. I'm simply pointing to history. I was hoping to have an intelligent conversation about history, but apparently that is unwelcome by some on this board.

[Indy4Chng]

What does Ron Paul think?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[Theocrat]

Read my edit, please.

I've just proven to you that God was an integral part of our nation's history, even so far as being mentioned in our States' constitutions! What evidence do you have that God had nothing to do with our alleged "secular government?" If you say "separation of Church and State," I'll tell you in advance that I believe that, but it does not mean "separation of religion and State." There's a difference between the two.

[Theocrat]

What does Ron Paul think?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

That's one of my favorite articles of his. Thanks for posting it. :)

[SeanEdwards]

If there is a supreme being, I don't think he'd appreciate you bible-thumpers trying to blame him (her/it/other) for this fucked up society we live in.

[Danke]

If you say "separation of Church and State," I'll tell you in advance that I believe that, but it does not mean "separation of religion and State." There's a difference between the two.

Don't you mean "it does not mean 'separation of religion from State'"?

[Patriot123]

I've just proven to you that God was an integral part of our nation's history, even so far as being mentioned in our States' constitutions! What evidence do you have that God had nothing to do with our alleged "secular government?" If you say "separation of Church and State," I'll tell you in advance that I believe that, but it does not mean "separation of religion and State." There's a difference between the two.

All right... And I don't disagree there. What I am disagreeing with you on is that this nation was founded upon Christianity.


View Post
If you say "separation of Church and State," I'll tell you in advance that I believe that, but it does not mean "separation of religion and State." There's a difference between the two.
Um, yes it does? Church is in reference to religion. Separation of church and state is the same as separation of religion and state. If our government is secular, then we have a secular nation.

[Theocrat]

Don't you mean "it does not mean 'separation of religion from State'"?

I think that means the same thing, but yes, "separation of religion from State" does say it more clearly.

[Ozwest]

Arghhhhh!

It's all too evident you are a Christian nation.

Otherwise how else could George Bush and Dick Cheney have been elected for two terms?

Good work.

Gonads.

[SeanEdwards]

Arghhhhh!

It's all too evident you are a Christian nation.

Otherwise how else could George Bush and Dick Cheney have been elected for two terms?

Good work.

Gonads.

We were hoping they'd launch a war against Australia.

Prick.

[Ozwest]

We were hoping they'd launch a war against Australia.

Prick.

Are you gonna nuke us?

Typical.

[Ozwest]

We were hoping they'd launch a war against Australia.

Prick.

What's wrong Sean?

Is Christianity a mind without reason?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[quote=Uncle Emanuel Watkins;1533685]

Yeah,

That would explain why you are a righteous prick.

The reason that we travel down the straight and narrow rather than hop about to and fro like you blokes do on kangaroos has little to do with religion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yeah right,

Thanks for the history lesson. You are a font.

I prefer a Republic.

Not a Theocracy.

That did not suit the Founding Fathers.

And "God Forbid," dickheads like you will never get your way.

Aristocracy. Aristo (Aristotle) cracy (System)
The weakness with bickering like children in a forum is that we can't interrupt each other.
In the meantime. Good golf, good tennis, go blow yourself or whatever makes you happy.

[Acala]

All right... And I don't disagree there. What I am disagreeing with you on is that this nation was founded upon Christianity.


Um, yes it does? Church is in reference to religion. Separation of church and state is the same as separation of religion and state. If our government is secular, then we have a secular nation.

The Arizona State Constitution says "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment."

Nice and clear.

[dannno]

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/gummi_lighthouses.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

[QUOTE=sophocles07;1534073]I can read ancient Greek, I’m aware of the term. It is used in a derogatory sense—one who speaks in rhetorical blinders to avoid the issue.

You fail to understand that Sophists were deep wisdomers who argued skillfully that the truth was no truth at all. They demonstrated this by debating one side of an argument after which time they would take a break before debating the other side. In contrast, the philosophers developed truth engines.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ok. Iraq was a Muslim nation with a secular government. 95% of their population was Muslim while the government did not enforce Islam (at least not like they do in Saudi Arabia or Iran.)

Soviet Russia was a Christian nation with an atheistic government.

The United States is a Christian nation with a secular government. (80% or so consider themselves Christian, while the government does not enforce Christianity.)

THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION? WHY ARE YOU MARXIST LIBERALS ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? DIDN'T OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WRITE THEIR ADMISSIONS TO BEING ATHEISTS IN SECRET CODE ON THE BACK OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

[mtmedlin]

For the record, you all are fucking idiots. This debate has taken place over a half dozen times and the same stupid results. What it comes down to is that the country is changing into a more neutral place where christians can no longer force those of us who are not christian to live the lifestyle that they want. In turn they will freak the hell out and "go into all the world and legislate the gospel" It wont matter because the intellectuals will inherit the earth and we all know that atheism is much more prevelant amongst those with High IQ and education. This in turn explains Theocrat.

That is all, you may now go on and fight out this same boring shit, while I laugh at you and make petty remarks.

[yongrel]

For the record, you all are fucking idiots. This debate has taken place over a half dozen times and the same stupid results. What it comes down to is that the country is changing into a more neutral place where christians can no longer force those of us who are not christian to live the lifestyle that they want. In turn they will freak the hell out and "go into all the world and legislate the gospel" It wont matter because the intellectuals will inherit the earth and we all know that atheism is much more prevelant amongst those with High IQ and education. This in turn explains Theocrat.

That is all, you may now go on and fight out this same boring shit, while I laugh at you and make petty remarks.

Half dozen? Nah. More like a gross.

[familydog]

For the record, you all are fucking idiots. This debate has taken place over a half dozen times and the same stupid results. What it comes down to is that the country is changing into a more neutral place where christians can no longer force those of us who are not christian to live the lifestyle that they want. In turn they will freak the hell out and "go into all the world and legislate the gospel" It wont matter because the intellectuals will inherit the earth and we all know that atheism is much more prevelant amongst those with High IQ and education. This in turn explains Theocrat.

That is all, you may now go on and fight out this same boring shit, while I laugh at you and make petty remarks.

lol :rolleyes:

[sophocles07]

You fail to understand that Sophists were deep wisdomers who argued skillfully that the truth was no truth at all. They demonstrated this by debating one side of an argument after which time they would take a break before debating the other side. In contrast, the philosophers developed truth engines.

Dude. Stop trying to explain sophists to me; I have a Graduate degree in Classics. Stop. I know about it. Of course they were intelligent. They also had reputations of using that knowledge as a way to make money—to trick students into using rhetoric to “win” arguments instead of addressing issues honestly.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Dude. Stop trying to explain sophists to me; I have a Graduate degree in Classics. Stop. I know about it. Of course they were intelligent. They also had reputations of using that knowledge as a way to make money—to trick students into using rhetoric to “win” arguments instead of addressing issues honestly.

I see. Wow. You are probably smarter than Plato. No wonder you have the tendency to be irreverent and reduce everything formal down to the informality of crap. Congratulations.

[sophocles07]

I see. Wow. You are probably smarter than Plato. No wonder you have the tendency to be irreverent and reduce everything formal down to the informality of crap. Congratulations.

Ah, I see: you think Plato is a SOPHIST? Are you kidding?

I'm merely saying: I know what a sophist is, I've studied Greek, I know about it, so I need no education from someone who doesn't even know that the Vulgate is a brilliant translation (and probably cannot read Latin).

So: to get back to the point: do you have PROOF that the ideas of liberty, et al that this country was founded upon, were impossible except through the Church and Christianity, as you've repeatedly claimed through this thread?

Or not?

[sophocles07]

By the way: you don't need to know Greek to know what I've said is true, it's on the fucking WIKIPEDIA page entry for Sophism:


In the second half of the 5th century BCE, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue," speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.

Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, along with the sophists practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger") and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. Their attacks against Socrates (in fictional prosecution speeches) prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.



In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone.


A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

Etc.

You attempting to explain that "sophos" means "wisdom" is pointblank idiocy. Of course it means wisdom; "DUH"; the accepted usage does not simply mean those having wisdom, etc. Which I hope you are aware of (if not, your whole explanation becomes so much more idiotic); if you are aware, you are simply being
a

SOPHIST.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ah, I see: you think Plato is a SOPHIST? Are you kidding?

I'm merely saying: I know what a sophist is, I've studied Greek, I know about it, so I need no education from someone who doesn't even know that the Vulgate is a brilliant translation (and probably cannot read Latin).

So: to get back to the point: do you have PROOF that the ideas of liberty, et al that this country was founded upon, were impossible except through the Church and Christianity, as you've repeatedly claimed through this thread?

Or not?

The question was whether the United States is a Christian nation. It is clearly a Christian nation. This issue isn't a debate. It is a comedy routine.
We are deeply secularized as a Christian nation if nothing else. That means even the atheists have a tendency to exhibit Puritan traits.
What you have managed to do here is belittle my intelligence while you are the one who believes that the United States is something other than a Christian nation. So, I guess that makes you crazy.

[sophocles07]

The question was whether the United States is a Christian nation. It is clearly a Christian nation.

If you mean “most are Christian”—as familydog has defined “Christian nation”—yes, true. Obviously. Christian State? No.



What you have managed to do here is belittle my intelligence while you are the one who believes that the United States is something other than a Christian nation. So, I guess that makes you crazy.

These were some of your statements throughout the thread:


Every significant form of human endeavor outside of knitting was a direct result of the Church. This is why they have basic courses in college so professors can steer naive students away from historical fallacy.


Another naivity is that we someone got our desires for freedom from some other culture outside of our Christian heritage. The ideals of liberty clearly came from our Protestantism and Puritanism.


Liberty didn't originate from a Greek idea. It originated from a our deeply rooted Christian secular culture. Catholic Protestants. English Puritans. If it didn't originate from the age of faith (Christianity) then it had to originate from the Greeks (age of reason). We got the idea of Democracy from the Greeks. Not freedom.

Now, do you have any concrete proof for this? You haven’t given any thus far. And if you cannot present some data for evidence, then you are simply claiming things, and should stop trying to “debate” anything. You come on with an air of arrogant “this is thuh wayy id is!” and never give any proof for what you say, mocking those as unschooled in history if they disagree.

Quite a fucking JOKE, if I may say so (I may).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

By the way: you don't need to know Greek to know what I've said is true, it's on the fucking WIKIPEDIA page entry for Sophism:

Etc.

You attempting to explain that "sophos" means "wisdom" is pointblank idiocy. Of course it means wisdom; "DUH"; the accepted usage does not simply mean those having wisdom, etc. Which I hope you are aware of (if not, your whole explanation becomes so much more idiotic); if you are aware, you are simply being
a

SOPHIST.

Sophy means wisdom. Philosophy means love of wisdom.
Sorry. I think we have received different types of education. I have a simple background in philosophy. You have obviously studied history from a more complex point of view.
Perhaps complexity is why you comprehend the nation as not Christian while I simply see it as such. I can accept this. Let us leave it at that.

[sophocles07]

Sophy means wisdom. Philosophy means love of wisdom.

Look, this is not that complicated.

Sophos, -a, -on, means “wise”—the noun meaning “wisdom.” When applied to Ancient Greek thinkers/rhetoricians, it had a specific meaning. It’s different from describing someone as wise, or having wisdom—like Euripides had “sophos.” “Sophist” means something specific. It is like saying “Pragmatist”. “Pragma” in Greek means “act, work, affair, deed,” etc. When used as “Pragmatist” it does not simply mean “someone doing something,” etc. It, when used with –ist, has a specific meaning. The same is true of Sophist. It means someone who set up shop, basically, to “teach wisdom”, which consisted mainly of teaching students how to argue this way or that cleverly. Even if they didn’t believe in what they were arguing about, like if one of us could argue for neo-Conservatism though we don’t believe in it. It’s sophistry—getting an advantage through trickery. The practice has some similarity to the Disputation in Logic courses in the Universities, of which Aquinas was the master. Today, Sophistry does not mean wiseman or thinker; it means specifically someone who uses trickery, sly, (think Satan in the Garden of Eden tricking through rhetoric Eve into eating the apple), “logic” to get an advantage (whether it be money, political position, political favor, or whatever). It came to have this meaning through wide-spread ridicule in the years of High Athens (5th cent BC), through playwrights, politicians, etc., condemning it as a corrupting, degenerate force.

So I don’t know what we need to say beyond that; if you can’t understand specific meanings, applied meanings, you are essentially a third grader, perhaps less so, even they could understand this if I explained it to them.


Sorry. I think we have received different types of education. I have a simple background in philosophy. You have obviously studied history from a more complex point of view.

It’s really not that complex; as I said, you can look at wikipedia and get about this information.

I don’t mean to say all philosophy is sophistry. Spinoza is not a sophist. Only those that use it for their own means—those who have no allegiance to pursuing truth for truth’s sake, and not for the sake of making a buck (or getting an advantage on an internet forum).


Perhaps complexity is why you comprehend the nation as not Christian while I simply see it as such. I can accept this. Let us leave it at that.

I’ve said I agree it is a “Christian nation.” I don’t agree it’s a “Christian State.” I’m using familydog’s earlier definitions. Meaning: if suddenly 80% became Hindu, we’d be a Hindu nation. But we’d still be a non-religious state.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If you mean “most are Christian”—as familydog has defined “Christian nation”—yes, true. Obviously. Christian State? No.
These were some of your statements throughout the thread:
Now, do you have any concrete proof for this? You haven’t given any thus far. And if you cannot present some data for evidence, then you are simply claiming things, and should stop trying to “debate” anything. You come on with an air of arrogant “this is thuh wayy id is!” and never give any proof for what you say, mocking those as unschooled in history if they disagree.
Quite a fucking JOKE, if I may say so (I may).

Okay. What is involved with our Greek heritage?

from Socrates, 469 BCE –399 BCE (Father of Western Civilization)
to Plato, 428 BCE – 347 BCE
to Aristotle, 384 BCE - 322 BCE (Father of modern science)
to Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli 1469 ACE – 1527 ACE (commonly known as "The Break" in political science)
to John Locke 1632 ACE – 1704 ACE (natural rights)
to Jean - Jacques Rousseau 1712 ACE – 1778 ACE (Social Contract theory. That the government should trust that the people want more than their lot in life but the best for themselves)
to Immanuel Kant - 1724 ACE – 1812 ACE (Forsook philosophy of science to become the other father of French Revolution)
to Thomas Jefferson - 1743 – 1826 (Principle aurthor of the Declaration of Independence)
to James Madison - 1751 – 1836 (Father of the U.S. Constitution)
to Ralph Waldo Emerson - 1803 – 1882 (Father of American Transcendentalism. First to shine light on Declaration of Independence. Established differences between American culture and European. Depicted native Americans as not the Puritan concept of savages but as the very ideal type of happy Americans our founding fathers intended for all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constution.)
to Abraham Lincoln 1809 – 1865 (Known on the internation level as defeater of natural Balkanization and the erosions to Tribalism that result. Established the Union by saving it. Known as a great emancipator of the slaves and a reconsecrator of the Declaration of Independence.)
to Mahandas Gandhi - 1869 – 1948 (political leader of Indian Independence Movement. That people should trust government. Developed the idea of saving the Union of India by the election of only minorities [other than Hindus] as the national administrator shortly before his assassination.)
to Franklin Roosevelt - 1882 – 1945 (saved the Union from eroding back into a primitive caste system of a master and slave economy by challenging a prior robber baron economy set up during the developments of the Industrial Revolution. He did this by utilizing millions of unemployeed workers from the private sector economy to work for established government organizations. An example of "New Deal" philosophy was the construction of the new Universities before the end of World War 2 built not to educate the returning soldiers but to keep them from entering too quickly into what was at that time a long hard fought for healthy economy.)

One could argue that the first Marxist was Socrates. Socrates wasn't concerned with the aspects of liberty that the master class in Athens enjoyed. The master class doesn't need liberty, never has never will. The ideal of liberty wouldn't become significant until after Socrates planted the seeds that would bring down the old primitive master and slave caste system to replace them with the modern concept of positive government.

Socrates was concerned with social equality, not liberty. What made Socrates different is while he had to be tactful when dealing with the elite in Athens, he was also well respected by them as the hoplite war hero who once exhibited so much courage and disregard for his own life that he was spared by the Spartans.

So, later on after the great philosopher had prayed for a whole day about whether he should undertake a mission to serve his fellow Athenians as a midwife philosopher, he wouldn't be afraid when it came time for him to express his opinions that Athens was behaving in a primitive fashion when contrasted to the greater ideals that he had in his head. He expressed these ideals by declaring himself a midwife serving teacher to the poor, by claiming that he could help the mind of a slave boy learn and by dedicating himself to asking questions to the common Athenians in the market.

In contrast, the Sophists were answering questions of the rich for a price.

After the time of the Zenith, Greek philosophy went through a transcendental period of the Hellenistic age leading up to and beyond the period of Christ. This age began with the works of Aristotle falling out of favor in Greece after the time of his banishment. This is why early Christian schools took on the characteristics of a Platonic school because works from Plato were the only ones to carry over into Western Europe after the time of Christ. While Plato certainly knew of the arts, he envisioned mathematics as the best science.

So, all of this falls into a deep, deep snore until we get to Jean Rousseau of the French Revolution, outside of a brief disturbance by Machiavelli. He awakened to the vision of the Marxist like Socrates in the 18th century thus declaring it the "Social Contract." This later came to be known as the "Social Contract Theory" in stuffy Universities. Jean Rousseau having no formal education went on to "move" people by writing the world's greatest political essays (which is where the idea for the Publius / Federalist papers came from later on) while John Locke the political scientist had already substantiated the natural laws to back him up.

Okay. So far, where does the idea of liberty come into play? Rousseau was more of a social equality person than a liberty person. Consider that Rousseau disciiple Hegel later claimed that it would be useless to grant liberty to the people without them owning property? This in turn spawned Karl Marx which in turn spawned Lenin.

[sophocles07]

One could argue that the first Marxist was Socrates. Socrates wasn't concerned with the aspects of liberty that the master class in Athens enjoyed. The master class doesn't need liberty, never has never will. The ideal of liberty wouldn't become significant until after Socrates planted the seeds that would bring down the old primitive master and slave caste system to replace them with the modern concept of positive government.

Actually, I have extreme doubts that Socrates cared about any of these issues. As far as I know, he never addressed anything to do with “liberty” or even “freedom” in the sense we understand it. (This is assuming we’re talking specifically about the iconic Platonic Socrates.) If you read Plato’s Republic, this would become obvious.


Socrates was concerned with social equality, not liberty. What made Socrates different is while he had to be tactful when dealing with the elite in Athens, he was also well respected by them as the hoplite war hero who once exhibited so much courage and disregard for his own life that he was spared by the Spartans.

Why do you say he was interested in social equality?


So, later on after the great philosopher had prayed for a whole day about whether he should undertake a mission to serve his fellow Athenians as a midwife philosopher, he wouldn't be afraid when it came time for him to express his opinions that Athens was behaving in a primitive fashion when contrasted to the greater ideals that he had in his head. He expressed these ideals by declaring himself a midwife serving teacher to the poor, by claiming that he could help the mind of a slave boy learn and by dedicating himself to asking questions to the common Athenians in the market.

I think you’re misconstruing the issue. I don’t think Plato’s Socrates was ever concerned with being a midwife to the poor in the sense you’re trying to mean. Again, The Republic contains all of the social models needed to understand Socrates’ philosophy. There were different castes made up of different people having (ideal) functions. Warrior caste; business caste; philosopher-ruler caste. Socrates was not at all interested in bringing the poor up to the ruling class. One of his models was the Dorian model, which was a feudal aristocracy—which killed its slaves and poor if they became “too intelligent” and posed a threat.


In contrast, the Sophists were answering questions of the rich for a price.

After the time of the Zenith, Greek philosophy went through a transcendental period of the Hellenistic age leading up to and beyond the period of Christ. This age began with the works of Aristotle falling out of favor in Greece after the time of his banishment. This is why early Christian schools took on the characteristics of a Platonic school because works from Plato were the only ones to carry over into Western Europe after the time of Christ. While Plato certainly knew of the arts, he envisioned mathematics as the best science.

Well, that’s the influence of Pythagoras. It has been argued that Plato was a synthesis, so to speak, of his influences: Pythagoras (doctrine of number), Parmenides (doctrine of the One), and Herakleitos (doctrine of flux). He, though, systemized all of these influences and expanded over them. Mathematics is the best because it is the most abstract, the most colorless (see Parmenides here mixed with Pythagoras).

You’re also ignoring the Roman republic wherein Cicero and many, many Latinate writers had contact with Greek texts—far before Rousseau. Remember, the Romans worshipped a goddess called Libertas, and had very definite laws and ordered moralities codified by the laws (all having something to do with freedom, or other social ideas).


So, all of this falls into a deep, deep snore until we get to Jean Rousseau of the French Revolution, outside of a brief disturbance by Machiavelli.

This is just too simplified for me to accept. I’m also not sure what you mean by “all of this”. Do you mean Plato or Aristotle, or what? Machiavelli was one in ten thousand “Renaissance” thinkers and commentators who came into contact with Greek and Roman classical ideas.


He awakened to the vision of the Marxist like Socrates in the 18th century thus declaring it the "Social Contract." This later came to be known as the "Social Contract Theory" in stuffy Universities. Jean Rousseau having no formal education went on to "move" people by writing the world's greatest political essays (which is where the idea for the Publius / Federalist papers came from later on) while John Locke the political scientist had already substantiated the natural laws to back him up.

I think your attempt to relate Marxism to all of this is a bit ...”smudgy.” None of this is Marxism without the main tenet / main signifier of Marxism: Labor Theory of Value. Without this, none of it’s Marxism.


Okay. So far, where does the idea of liberty come into play? Rousseau was more of a social equality person than a liberty person. Consider that Rousseau disciiple Hegel later claimed that it would be useless to grant liberty to the people without them owning property? This in turn spawned Karl Marx which in turn spawned Lenin.

You’ve provided a very general summary, in places wrong, and ignored any non-Greek influence. Rome. You have as yet provided no basis for seeing Judeo-Christian thought as the origin of the idea of liberty.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Actually, I have extreme doubts that Socrates cared about any of these issues. As far as I know, he never addressed anything to do with “liberty” or even “freedom” in the sense we understand it. (This is assuming we’re talking specifically about the iconic Platonic Socrates.) If you read Plato’s Republic, this would become obvious.

Ah! I see the problem now! I believe in the fall of man. This means when reading the history of the ancient Greeks I don't consider them inferior to us. I tend to see things in a formal sense when reading their history while you seem to informalize. Perhaps this will explain why you tend to have extreme doubts. You have a very modern mind.

[sophocles07]

Ah! I see the problem now! I believe in the fall of man. This means when reading the history of the ancient Greeks I don't consider them inferior to us. I tend to see things in a formal sense when reading their history while you seem to informalize. Perhaps this will explain why you tend to have extreme doubts. You have a very modern mind.

I don't consider them "inferior." I think they have complex, singular ideas that can't be reduced to--as you so ridiculously did--Marxism. It's a fucking joke to say that. Their ideas on freedom were very, very different. As Nietzsche has stated, for the Greeks freedom did not mean to have the freedom to do what one wants up to a point, without harming others, it meant freedom of will, being able to DO WHAT ONE WANTS, no matter the harm. Slaves were a sign of will acting out its ability, as in Sparta especially.

Stop trying to debate this, you make yourself look more and more ridiculous each time.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Christian%20nation&r=d&db=web

[Truth Warrior]

Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"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 tranquillity, 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."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

extracted from: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html