There are plenty of books out there declaring the US to be a "Christian nation," and rebuttals. But for fun, I wanted to publish some documentation that shows that many, if not most, of our founding fathers did NOT have the strict separation of church and state in mind that modern liberals are in love with.
In fact, looking at the facts, the best interpretation of the establishment clause of the constitution, and the prohibition on a "religious test for office" is best interpreted as "no DENOMINATIONAL test." Requiring a man to be Christian in order to hold office was entirely consistent with the founders’ world view.
Mayflower Compact (first Govt Document)
In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of the faith, &c
Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
1639 Connecticut Constitution (Fundamental Orders of Connecticut)
This first constitution is what earned Connecticut the nickname of "The Constitution State"
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:
…the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God
1642 First Published School Law
The founding fathers believed that the evils of the Inquisition could have been avoided if the common people could have read and known the bible. So they made this law, which was the first to establish public education:
Ye Olde Deluder Satan Act
It is therefore ordred yt evry towneship in this jurisdiction, aftr ye Lord hath increased ym to ye number of 50 householdrs, shall then forthwth appoint one wthin their towne to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write & reade, whose wages whall be paid eithr by ye parents or mastrs of such children, or by ye inhabitants in genrall, by way of supply, as ye maior pt of those yt ordr ye prudentials of ye towne shall appoint; pvided, those yt send their children be not oppressed by paying much more ytn they can have tm taught for in othr townes; & it is furthr ordered, yt where any towne shall increase to ye numbr of 100 families or househouldrs, they shall set up a gramer schoole, ye mr thereof being able to instruct youth so farr as they may be fited for ye university, pvided, yt if any towne neglect ye pformance hereof above one yeare, yt every such towne shall pay 5 l to ye next schoole till they shall pforme this order.
1774 Provincial Congress (First Congress)
The first act was to open with prayer – a 3 hour prayer session. John Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife about the first congressional meeting:
"Just this morning we had heard that Great Britain had opened fire on Boston…but our Psalm for this morning was Psalm 35…God used this Psalm to calm our hearts at rest…we prayed Psalm 35 as a Congress this morning…"
Written by US Constitution signers Read and McKean
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
1776 North Carolina Constitution
Requirements for office:
That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
CONCLUSION:
So, what can we conclude from these documents? Here’s more examples of public Christian faith in our government for you to mull over.
I see Ben Franklin's prophecy coming true here:
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
Emphasis mine. That is happening, imo.
As far as a "Christian Nation" I actually do not like that expression, myself. We certainly do not act like one. Very hypocrytical expression, imo.
And I definitely agree that while many of our founders ideas were based on biblical principles, they were the ones of morality and not religious "beliefs" necessarily.
In Cineaste's link John Adams said this:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
Again, emphasis mine. Even nature is being seen as erroneousness in this day and age, though. So we are fast losing our basis of government in reality, if you ask me.
I firmly believe that the "Founding Fathers" would have insisted that the "morality" of today (selfishness) isnt really morality. They didnt have to deal with such "artifice" and "imposture" as we have today in many "minority" lobbyist groups and their influence on Americans to do whatever they desire without regard to consequences.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
As pointed out earlier, yet unsurprisingly ignored by you, the founding fathers were deists. For goodness sake, Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason. To reiterate the Treaty of Tripoi, lest there is any doubt remaining…
Also ignored is my comment on abortion in cases of rape and incest. I think you need to address this or risk being accused of being a "do as I say, not as I do" evangelical.
…and Aaron still has not responded to the evidence of Katherine Harris tainting the electoral process which he asked me to provide.
Lastly, one of Lawanda's questions really made me think about morality. She asked me in an earlier post where I think morality comes from. I had a general question to devout Christians that maybe deserves a post of it's own. Where do you guys think we get our morality from? Is it from scripture? Is it from God's divine nature? Is it from somewhere else? I would love to discuss this with you guys. Lawanda, I found something that I think you might like if Seeker and Aaron post about this.
And just to clarify some personal viewpoints, I wanted to say that the founding fathers showed great vision in creating a government with the separation of church and state. The alternative would be a "Christian Nation" as Seeker posts about. It would exclude Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and free thinkers. You cited the Connecticut Constitution. Thankfully, we don't abide by that for if we did, non-Christians, people like me, Louis, and Sam would be disenfranchised. Here is an example of a typical Evangelical family and it should be obvious what a disaster it would be if well meaning yet extremist people like them ran our country as a "Christian Nation."
Cineaste, that is not typical! That cannot be typical. That family was OVER THE TOP. I am serious, that CANNOT be typical.
I do think that the original folks were more Christian in their ideals than you'd like to admit…for some reason.
I think it is obvious the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a nation "above" the rest. And they definitely did not want religious doctrines to be the law, because they were WELL AWARE of how that can be abused.
But. they did want morality and common decency to prevail, and most of them being Christians took their moral ideals from the Bible.
That is how I see it, anyway.
I have been reading Thomas Paine, and he was NOT an atheist. He did not believe in the "three religions" of Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim. But even he says—
What more does man want to know than that the hand or power that made these things is divine, is omnipotent? Let him believe this with the force it is impossible to repel, if he permits his reason to act, and his rule of moral life will follow of course.
Age of Reason Part First, Section 8, first paragraph
1. While I agree that the Christian test for office is not something I hold to, many of our founders did. But where I do agree with the founders is that
The evidence I offered should "put to rest" any contentions that the founders were personally or publicly mere deists. That's all I am saying. To say so is to be very selective about your data, while ignoring the data I offered. I have not ignored your data, but am merely saying that, while some wanted a secular country (like Jefferson) others like Adams pushed back on the idea that a purely secular state could survive. Even Jefferson admitted that God had something to do with our success.
2. While the Treaty of Tripoli is one interesting piece of evidence, what about the Supreme Court acknowledging that this is a Christian nation? I'd say that they arbiter of our laws is more authoritative than ONE outlier treaty which has little to do with our national self-definition.
3. I only ignore your comments when they are pejorative name calling. I seemed to have missed some point you wanted me to address. But trust me, you don't have many statements that are hard to answer or that I want to avoid ;)
I already answered your question on abortion – your analogy is a poor one, and mine is better. But limited analogies aside, my point is that you would kill a child of rape or incest – in fact, you avoid the real issue, which is whether or not the child has rights. I mean, if you let a child of rape or incest come to term and be born, could you kill them after they were born? Of course not!
So, the morality of killing the fetus does not depend on whether or not it was created by rape or incest, but on whether or not it has the right to protection from harm by the law, and IF it does, at what point? As I say, from the point of personhood, which in my mind is CLEARLY before birth, the child must be protected, rape or not. Two wrongs can't make a right.
4. While your example of a "typical" Evangelical family is unfortunately more true than I would like to admit, it is as true as me choosing a "typical" secular family that has alcoholism and discord and parading it as an argument against secularism. While this may fit your preferred caricature of evangelicals, as the now famous ebay atheist can tell you, Christians are a varied bunch, and much more pleasant than you suppose.
aren't those the people who are pushing for a "Christian Nation"?
Unfortunately, there is more than one flavor of Christians pushing for Christian legislation. They range from the Dominionists to the Recontructionists (not the same) to the Wallbuilders Evangelicals (believing that we are a Christian nation) to the Cultural Mandate folks like me, to the Evangelical Left who want social justice because they think the bible says so.
2. While the Treaty of Tripoli is one interesting piece of evidence, what about the Supreme Court acknowledging that this is a Christian nation? I'd say that they arbiter of our laws is more authoritative than ONE outlier treaty which has little to do with our national self-definition.
Sigh, this is already addressed in the link I provided but for you Seeker I'll transcribe it…
I already answered your question on abortion – your analogy is a poor one, and mine is better.
Nice assertion, but no support, you don't say why.
My point is that you would kill a child of rape or incest – in fact, you avoid the real issue, which is whether or not the child has rights. I mean, if you let a child of rape or incest come to term and be born, could you kill them after they were born? Of course not!
Seeker, re-read the analogy carefully this time. None of what you said above makes sense because it does not follow from the premises.
I only ignore your comments when they are pejorative name calling.
What pejorative name did I call you? Was there not a qualifier?
Also,
He was a deist, like many of the founders.
This is not quite accurate. Many of the founders followed a "functional deism" when it came to government policy (although strictly speaking, that would disqualify everyone who believed in the Providential action of God on our behalf, including Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin), while in their personal lives, most were biblical Christian.
I would agree, btw, with Brewer's formulation there – we are under no legal obligation to support xianity, nor are we under any obligation to bar it from public discourse on morality and legislation – if we did, such great reformers as Lincoln and King would be considered illogical Christian zealots.
…that would disqualify everyone who believed in the Providential action of God on our behalf.
Interesting. This is an important point Christians emphasize and here is why…
Without the "provincial action of God" as you put it, God could not have "chosen" America to succeed. This is exactly why the founders did not mix Christianity with Government.
P.S. I am serious about you reading my abortion analogy in cases of incest and rape more carefully. I think you are missing the point again just like when you couldn't understand that I could scientifically infer that you have a heart.
I think God has blessed America. But I don't think he will much longer. But maybe I am a pessimist. I always viewed signs that say "God Bless America" as a little bossy, myself. Like they are commanding God to bless us. That's just a personal opinion.
And to be clear, the term "Christian nation" is thrown about, and can mean different things.
It could mean:
– founded on Christian principles (true, but not exclusively – also consider Locke)
– designed on biblical model (somewhat true)
– founders were largely Christian (true)
– many founding documents displayed outright Christian bias (true)
– founders intended that all office holders must be Christian (arguable, perhaps not)
– most original settlers were evangelical (in the generic sense – absolutely) and looking to spread the gospel
– founders intended us to follow Mosaic law (not)
– founders assumed that the people must be religious or otherwise end up immoral (mostly true)
– founders assumed that biblical morality was correct (mostly true)
– founders intended that biblical morality should be enshrined as law (true, but limited)
. This is an important point Christians emphasize and here is why…
Actually, if I may broadbrush, there are two categories of doctrine here – the more general evangelical position is that God is involved in the formation and decline of nations. That is scriptural.
Additionally, many of the founders publically claimed that God was obviously at work defending the formation of the US, for two reasons – one, her cause was just, and two, his purpose was the spreading of the unfettered gospel, which had become fettered in Europe.
Also, many founders believed in portraying the US as "a city set on a hill, a light to the nations." While this imagery can be viewed generically, it is a direct quote from the scriptures defining the New Jerusalem of prophecy.
Many evangelicals believe, rightly, that God has purposes not only for individuals but for nations in his redemptive plan, and when they stray from him, His purpose may spring up within another nation who turns to Him.
That leads us to the second, more fundamental group, who also believe that America is literally the "New Jerusalem." This is a more serious doctrinal issue, and most evangelicals and fundies don't believe this.
And the term "God Bless America" is a request, not a command. I think that is the best and plainest interpretation of that phrase, esp. if you are talking about the song.
I know it is probably a request (definitely is in the song), but really I think people get pretty bossy with their requests sometimes dont you?
It's all in the tone of voice. Would you like it better if it was "God, please bless America"? ;)
Perhaps you want a song of repentance first?
I think I would just like it better if it werent a sort of propaganda, actually :)
But really a "Thank you God, for Blessing America" would do. ;)
How’s this from the fourth stanza of the Star Spangled Banner?
Now THAT is poetry! – conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
– founded on Christian principles (true, but not exclusively – also consider Locke)
– designed on biblical model (somewhat true)
– founders were largely Christian (true)
– many founding documents displayed outright Christian bias (true)
– founders intended that all office holders must be Christian (arguable, perhaps not)
– most original settlers were evangelical (in the generic sense – absolutely) and looking to spread the gospel
– founders intended us to follow Mosaic law (not)
– founders assumed that the people must be religious or otherwise end up immoral (mostly true)
– founders assumed that biblical morality was correct (mostly true)
– founders intended that biblical morality should be enshrined as law (true, but limited)
Seeker, it's a sin to lie so stop it. Don't you believe you will go to Hell if you continue to deceive people like this?
Which part isnt true?
I believe these are all true and can be borne out with evidence. Which points do you disagree with? Note that I put my opinion of each in parens.
But when we say "Christian nation" we can be talking about any of these.
Which points do you disagree with?
The first, as the rest are essentially related. Seeker, I can only surmise that you didn’t read Dr. Walker’s article so for you, I’ll transcribe it so you can. It also gives a rundown of the founders who were deists not evangelical Christians. The article is well documented with sources listed in the bibliography. Thanks to Mr. Jim Walker for his research. I’ve added emphasis where I noticed it contradicts some of your “Christian Nation” assertions.
So if I array a similarly impressive list of quotes and historical commentaries, what does that mean?
It means that there is good evidence for a middle position.
So if I array a similarly impressive list of quotes and historical commentaries, what does that mean?
You could misquote Einstein and make him out to be a Christian when in reality he was not. Einstein denied being a theist. Aaron has quoted the eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould's view on punctuated equilibrium to make it seem his theories supported creationism; a total misrepresentation. You could take the same tact with the founders but it would be no more true than with Einstein and Gould.
Seeker, I realize that as a Christian you want your own religion to be ascendant. The facts (detailed above) though are not up for debate. What is, is. What happened, happened. It is clear that our government was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, NOT on Christianity. The foundation of the United States on Christianity would have contradicted the founders goal to have a government with freedom of religion. With Christianity ascendant in government, it would limit the freedom of all other religions and non beliefs. It is a contradiction which rational people can't avoid and it's glaring enough that only fundamentalist Christians are blind enough not to recognize it. Or, they don't want to.
I realize that as a Christian you want your own religion to be ascendant. The facts (detailed above) though are not up for debate.
Dude, the fact that you select some quotes while ignoring others shows that YOU have a bias towards secularism. I don't deny your quotes, I only say that they are not the whole story. You and those like you want to cleanse our history from biblical Christianity as if it were not one of the primary drivers of our history. I call BS on that. You ignore the significant contribution of xianity to history, thinking that it was merely the Enlightenment that forged our modern history, when in truth, it was both the Enlightenment AND the Reformation.
The fact is, most of the founding colonists that came here came to spread the gospel. That's why Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were all evangelical (small "e") seminaries. That's why our founding documents are laden with Christian language. That's why one of the large paintings in the Rotunda of the Capital building is The Baptism of Pocahontas.
I agree that many of our founders were functional deists when it came to government, but many were also profoundly Christian. Sure, Christians like to paint everyone important from history as Christian, just like gays like to revise history to show how everyone was gay. But the fact is, part of my response is merely to counter the ridiculous secuarlist contention that the founders were religion despisers like most modern secularists, when in fact, it was quite the opposite.
While the quotes you provided may be true, so are mine, and I barely scratched the surface. So my "facts" are "indisputable" too.
Don't make the evolutionists mistake of thinking that facts "speak for themselves." They are interpreted through a framework, and when you leave out data that contradicts you, your conclusions can be way off.
Again, I don't disagree that many of the founders had a nuanced, deist approach when it comes to faith and politics. But I also contend that many, even most, were not only biblical Christians, but based the design of our government on biblical principle, thought the Christian faith to be objectively true and essential to personal and national success, and were not antithetical to saturating public life and politics with Christian thought.
Do you think that the placement of the Ten Commandments in Congress was put there by secularist "separation of Church and State" freaks? No.
I believe this is entirely false:
Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity.
John Adams also said:
In 1796, on Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, Adams wrote:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will."
In another letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, he wrote:
I have examined all [religions]…and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.
And about Thomas Jefferson:
On matters of religion, Jefferson in 1800 was accused by his political opponents of being an atheist and enemy of religion.
And about Benjamin Franklin:
Like the other advocates of republicanism, Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous. Indeed all his life he had been exploring the role of civic and personal virtue, as expressed in Poor Richard's aphorisms.
Like most Enlightenment intellectuals, Franklin separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline. Thus he wrote Thomas Paine, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." As Morgan shows, Franklin was a proponent of all religions. He prayed to "Powerful Goodness" and referred to God as the "INFINITE." As John Adams noted, Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Benjamin Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion.
from wikipedia :)
You and those like you want to cleanse our history from biblical Christianity as if it were not one of the primary drivers of our history.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my beliefs. I DO NOT want to cleanse Christianity from our history. Perhaps this is what Evangelicals tell themselves to propagate the delusion secularists are the enemy of Christianity. I and secularists don’t give a rat’s ass what superstitions you hold as long as you keep them to yourselves and out of government and public schools, as intended by the founders. This ensures you can’t push your superstitions upon others who believe differently. It ensures freedom of religion.
The fact is, most of the founding colonists that came here came to spread the gospel.
In fact, they came here to escape religious persecution. Persecution perpetrated by governments WITHOUT separation of church and state.
But the fact is, part of my response is merely to counter the ridiculous secularist contention that the founders were religion despisers like most modern secularists, when in fact, it was quite the opposite.
Again, your interpretation that secularists despise religion is just that, yours. Secularists, both then and now, want religion and government separate for everyone’s good. You take the desire of a government free from religious manipulation as a personal slight against yourself and Christianity. One only needs to look at Muslim religion in government for an example of how religion in government is anathema to liberty. Look at the the Sunni and Shiites in the Iraqi government and how well that is working out. Secularists don’t want a government crippled by religious strife. No, the founders did not despise Christianity, they just knew that a government founded upon reason is better than one founded upon the same religious dogma they originally sought to escape.
While the quotes you provided may be true, so are mine, and I barely scratched the surface. So my “facts” are “indisputable” too.
I dispute your quotes relevance and pertinence to the United States Constitution. I dispute the spirit in which you make these assertions for I have caught creationists deliberately misquoting people like Einstein and Stephen Jay Gould too often to take them at face value.
Don’t make the evolutionists mistake of thinking that facts “speak for themselves.” They are interpreted through a framework, and when you leave out data that contradicts you, your conclusions can be way off.
Right, just as you young earth creationists contend that the speed of light must be a miscalculation because it contradicts Genesis. Basically you must go against Roemer and Albert Einstein’s math calculation that light is a constant (traveling 186,000 miles per second). So Christians must conclude E=MC2 is wrong! Ooops, there goes The Theory of Relativity down the drain. Talk about interpreting data through a framework!
(The Founders) thought the Christian faith to be objectively true and essential to personal and national success, and were not antithetical to saturating public life and politics with Christian thought.
No, this is the Christian Nationalist perception. It is not the truth. There is no evidence that that Christianity breeds success. Sweden is one of the most successful nations in the world yet it is predominantly secular.
Do you think that the placement of the Ten Commandments in Congress was put there by secularist “separation of Church and State” freaks?
FREAKS?! Ah!! Now we get to your true feelings! “Freaks.” I am so glad you used the word “freaks” to describe secularists for this shows your true thought process as outlined here…
Don’t make the evolutionists mistake of thinking that facts “speak for themselves.” They are interpreted through a framework, and when you leave out data that contradicts you, your conclusions can be way off.
I DO NOT want to cleanse Christianity from our history
I am just going by how you act and what you say. You act as if I am lying or making these things up. You are obviously trying to deny these as factual, important, and reflective of the truth of the situation.
to propagate the delusion secularists are the enemy of Christianity. I and secularists don't give a rat's ass what superstitions you hold as long as you keep them to yourselves and out of government and public schools, as intended by the founders….Again, your interpretation that secularists despise religion is just that, yours.
There you go, case in point. You openly denigrate faith (or "superstition" as you errantly call it). And you want to keep Christian ideas and values out of public life and policy – and may I add, you would like to remove it from the history of our public life and policy, but you can't. You think you are convincing in calling yourself not anti-faith, and "not despising faith" when you want to relegate it to obscurity and openly call it falsehood?
Secularists, both then and now, want religion and government separate for everyone's good. You take the desire of a government free from religious manipulation as a personal slight against yourself and Christianity.
Here's where your black and white, fundamentalist thinking comes in. Islam sees no separation between faith and government. Secularist fundamentalists want a complete isolation and separation of the two, believing that all faith and morals that arise in them are merely subjective, religious ideas.
But my position, the biblical one, I might add, is that there is *some* separation, but not this complete separation that secularists use to, for example, disenfranchise the unborn, undermine the family unit, and justify sexual and mental illnesses.
Pure secularism relies solely on man's reason, and is as prone to ultimate corruption as putting an Imam in charge. Atheistic and secular world views that do not respect the value and truth in Christianity are doomed to become totalitarian, even when they desire to do good – like the Communists. This is true precisely because they rely on themselves as the ultimate arbiter of truth, rather than claiming rightly that some truths are self evident, and find their origin in the Creator.
I dispute the spirit in which you make these assertions for I have caught creationists deliberately misquoting people like Einstein and Stephen Jay Gould too often to take them at face value.
Yes, well that dishonest tactic is used on all sides. But unless you can bring such a charge against my quotes, then you are judging unfairly. If I have been duped into abusing a quote, I will recant (but only on that quote – I believe that my point still stands).
Right, just as you young earth creationists contend that the speed of light must be a miscalculation because it contradicts Genesis.
Straw man and red herring. YECs claim that one possible explanation for the red shifts we see, as well as the apparent old age of the universe is that our age calculations are off. One possible explanation is that particle degradation and the speed of light may be slowing. Smart minds debate this logically, and it is a fun debate.
So Christians must conclude E=MC2 is wrong!
Non sequitur, invalid conclusion. If the current rate of degradation of c is minimal, then Einstein's equation is correct. However, we may find in the future, like Newtonian law, that Einstein was only partly correct. Enter string theory or whatever other theory shows up.
Sweden is one of the most successful nations in the world yet it is predominantly secular.
As I have previously discussed, Sweden's "success" can be explained in other ways besides its secularism, including
– it's Protestant heritage and the ethics and ideas that persist in the culture
– borrowing against its future, both monetarily and socially (present and future failure of the welfare state, high abortion rates)
– other measures that indicate that Sweden is failing (suicide rates, divorce rates, single parent households)
I am so glad you used the word "freaks"
Well, I keep looking for a word to replace "fundamentalists" since you don't like the word. But I use such a word for all extremists, be they Muslim, atheist, or Christian. If the shoe fits.
Faith Won't Heal a Divided World
Neither will secularism. But Christianity, imho, has the best track record (you read that right) of any ideology, and the fact is, there is no other real hope for mankind, since returning to the creator is all there is. I'm not poo-pooing the excellent work of humanists or peaceful people of all religions. I am just saying that evil will always be with us because humans are involved.
Well, I keep looking for a word to replace “fundamentalists” since you don’t like the word. But I use such a word for all extremists, be they Muslim, atheist, or Christian. If the shoe fits.
No, no. Keep referring to secularists as “freaks.” This only empowers me to call you religious fanatics freaks as well. I’m just using your own word you evangelical freak. As you say, if the show fits :) How do you like wearing it?
You think you are convincing in calling yourself not anti-faith, and “not despising faith” when you want to relegate it to obscurity and openly call it falsehood?
What else is religion but superstition? It’s certainly not fact. You can believe it is, but that does not make it so. That’s why it’s actually called “faith” and not “fact.” I definitly don’t want to remove Christianity from history any more than I would want to remove astrology. Americans have the freedom to be as ignorant as they want. They only way to combat ignorance is through education, especially in the hard sciences.
Secularist fundamentalists want a complete isolation and separation of the two, believing that all faith and morals that arise in them are merely subjective, religious ideas.
As I said before Secularists think this by default. Slapping the term “fundamentalist” does nothing. Secularists believe religion and government should have nothing to do with each other, period. To help you comprehend, the “non-fundamentalist” secularists believe the exact same thing as the “fundamentalist” secularists; separation of church and state. Try to comprehend this; atheism/agnosticism are totally different from secularism. You see, secularism is a political stance, Atheism/Agnosticism/Christianity are religious/non-religious stances. Secularists for example, would fight against laws that ban religion. I would fight against laws banning religion no matter how ridiculous I personally thought the religion is. So, whether its Wicca, Christians, Pagans, Muslims or Jews propagate your ignorance however you like but keep it out of government.
But my position, the biblical one, I might add, is that there is *some* separation, but not this complete separation that secularists use to, for example, disenfranchise the unborn, undermine the family unit, and justify sexual and mental illnesses.
This is true precisely because they rely on themselves as the ultimate arbiter of truth, rather than claiming rightly that some truths are self evident, and find their origin in the Creator.
But “The Flying Spaghetti monster” created everyone. Your god has no more validity than His Noodleyness.
But unless you can bring such a charge against my quotes, then you are judging unfairly.
I don’t see how your quotes pertain to the Constitution of the United States of America. Explain.
YECs claim that one possible explanation for the red shifts we see, as well as the apparent old age of the universe is that our age calculations are off. One possible explanation is that particle degradation and the speed of light may be slowing.
You referenced AIG for this, I can tell because I looked it up to anticipate your reply. Here is my reply to you and AIG…
YEC’s also have no evidence of this. YEC freaks may as well claim the moon is made of cheese. This is an example of YEC BS.
If the current rate of degradation of c is minimal…
Prove it. Tell me oh wise creationist, why is C not a constant?
Sweden’s “success” can be explained in other ways besides its secularism.
None of these have any support. It’s stuff that you made up.
Since returning to the creator is all there is…
The problem is that not everyone agrees on the identity of the creator so we fight over it with planes crashing into buildings and people wearing bombs. Religion is not consistent around the world. Science and logic is.
What else is religion but superstition? It's certainly not fact.
Depends on how you define faith (the word "religion" means something else). If you are talking about blind faith, which is as objectionable as superstition, you are right to dismiss these. But as I discussed in The Atheist's Caricature of Faith, healthy faith is neither unreasonable nor mere superstition. It is merely finding a credible source and believing it before reason or experimentation validate it to the nth degree.
You can believe it is, but that does not make it so.
And you can believe it is NOT so, but that does not make it not so. Just because we can not currently ascertain something as fact does not make it non-factual. It just means the jury is out. I understand that you may only want to rely on reason in order to avoid the mistakes and presumption that many people of faith experience. However, don't push your safe, limited view onto those who are willing to live beyond what they can see and measure – many (most?) of the great works of mercy were initiated because of faith, while people of reason arrived as Johnny-come-latelies, if at all after they saw what people of faith saw before they had an inkling.
The fact that you see only superstition when faith is discussed shows your predilection for a narrow (dare I say "secular fundamentalist"?), self-serving definition of faith. Of course, such a straw man is easily dismissed as spurious.
Slapping the term "fundamentalist" does nothing. Secularists believe religion and government should have nothing to do with each other, period.
No, as I said, fundamentalism not only refers to those who appeal to their own set of universal fundamentals ("religion and government should have nothing to do with one another"), it also entails disdain for their opponents, suppression, and/or unwillingness to see a logical compromise position.
I don't see how your quotes pertain to the Constitution of the United States of America. Explain.
I did, but since you seem unable to come up with any specific challenges, let me restate. I am saying that those who say that the US is in no way a "Christian nation" are playing two games of deception.
1. They need to define what "Christian nation" means. It can mean many things, and some of those "things" most certainly ARE true about our founders and their ideas. Both sides of the argument play this semantic game.
2. The fact that many of the founders crafted their own state constitutions with explicit Christian provisions and language goes to show that many of them did NOT support this strict separation, and in fact, may have interpreted the non-establishment clause much differently than anti-religious secular bigots claim.
3. The fact that many of the founders claimed a biblical and evangelical Christianity for themselves, and testified to both the private and public value of the Bible means that they most certainly *were* influenced by it – in fact, PRIMARILY by it, not merely by John Locke (though he was an influence).
4. Therefore, I contend that the strict "separation of church and state," which is NOT enshrined in our national documents, is a modern secularists revision of history, not the founders' intention when they spoke of non-establishment, and is extremist in the way that anti-secular theocrats (true theocrats, not the ones that secularists keep claiming are falling from the skies) want religious rule.
While secularists may think that such an arrangement is best, they do NOT have the founders strictly on their side any more than the theocrats, and the fact is, like it or not, the theocrats do have good support for their historical position, though I disagree with their application of faith to public policy on many accounts.
None of these have any support. It's stuff that you made up.
Yes, all those stats I pulled from International Agencies was made up. In fact, I made up their web sites myself. Just like I made up the Protestant Revivalist history of those countries, and the vestiges of it seen in the remaining state-sponsored Christian churches.
The problem is that not everyone agrees on the identity of the creator so we fight over it with planes crashing into buildings and people wearing bombs.
Well, you can choose to say that there is NO creator, or you can choose a view that suits your faculties for reason and justice. That's what I've done.
I also refer you back to this article
http://www.wholereason.com/2005/09/what_is_separat.html
It (faith) is merely finding a credible source and believing it before reason or experimentation validate it to the nth degree.
The credible source you refer to is the Bible? It's no more credible than the Koran. If you disagree, take it up with the Muslims.
Just because we can not currently ascertain something as fact does not make it non-factual. It just means the jury is out.
This is the same argument made by people who swear Leprechauns exist.
However, don't push your safe, limited view onto those who are willing to live beyond what they can see and measure
I am not. As I said, religious fundamentalists, even those who take the bible literally, are free to be as ignorant as they want to be. They can even propagate their ignorance, as long as they keep it out of government and public schools. Hey, if you want to teach your daughter that the speed of light is not a constant, that's your business. Personally, I think feeding her that kind of misinformation will harm her education.
While people of reason arrived as Johnny-come-latelies
By "people of reason" I assume you mean atheists? I'll easily prove your statement false. Read this epitaph from an ancient Roman gravestone:
The fact that you see only superstition when faith is discussed shows your predilection for a narrow (dare I say "secular fundamentalist"?), self-serving definition of faith. Of course, such a straw man is easily dismissed as spurious.
Dare I say, you religious freak (your word not mine), that anyone who believes in witchcraft, like you, is superstitious. The Salem witch trials were based on similar religious superstition. This is no straw man.
Therefore, I contend that the strict "separation of church and state," which is NOT enshrined in our national documents…
Actually it is. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
The theocrats do have good support for their historical position
I've read every single quote from religious bigots you provided and there are no connections to the Constitution. All you've provided is local level stuff, nothing from the framers of our government.
Yes, all those stats I pulled from International Agencies was made up.
Not the stats themselves silly, you made up the conclusions. For example…
I swear you get more "freaky" and closed minded with every post :)
Well, you can choose to say that there is NO creator, or you can choose a view that suits your faculties for reason and justice. That's what I've done.
Well, you can choose to believe in a creator like the Christian God, Allah, Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or you can choose a view that suits your faculties for reason and justice. That's what I've done.
Cineaste think about this:
I and secularists don't [care] what superstitions you hold as long as you keep them to yourselves and out of government and public schools, as intended by the founders. This ensures you can't push your superstitions upon others who believe differently. It ensures freedom of religion.
Christians have the freedom of speech as well as anyone.
And seeker, I would say that "christianity" should NOT BE OUR GOVERNMENT, but having Christians as leaders in our Government will lend to more christian-like ideals. I put christianity in quotes, because it is obvious that one person's is not necessarily the same as the next person's. But the biblical morality, I believe, was definitely a HUGE PART of the founding fathers' vision of our government. They did want seperation of church and state for that very reason I mentioned at start of this paragraph. And I think you agree with that, don't you?
Christians have the freedom of speech as well as anyone.
Yes Lawanda I totally agree. But they don't have the freedom to legislate Christian laws and teach Christianity in public schools. Just like Muslims don't have the right to legislate Muslim laws and teach Islam in public schools. The United States and so, also our schools, include people from many other faiths, non faiths, and backgrounds. Both Christians and Muslims retain the freedom of speech.
And sorry Lawanda if my posts sound harsh. Seeker knows how to press my buttons so I do the same to him.
But they don't have the freedom to legislate Christian laws and teach Christianity in public schools
That's right – thou shalt not kill is in the bible, so you can't make it a law. You are being overly simplistic. The fact is, all "christian" ideas aren't religious, and because xianity is an objectively true and historic faith, it is integrated with other systems of thought, so it has a perspective on government and ethics that is as valid, perhaps more valid, than one based on purely secular suppositions.
That's right – thou shalt not kill is in the bible, so you can't make it a law.
Seeker, don't be purposefully obtuse. Not killing people is not exclusive to Christianity. There were laws against murder long before Christianity ever hit the scene. This is not a religious stance, it's an ethical one. Which leads to…
Just a request, would you allow me to make a "guest" post about this topic? I remember you let Rational Sean do the once.
It's almost amusing to see people still trying to "prove" that the founders did not mean what they said when they wrote the laws on religious freedom in America. Almost amusing.
But in the end, it's really rather sad. In the quoting of the Mayflower Compact, for example, you bold an ancillary clause instead of the active clause: "doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid."
They swear in the presence of God, but they form a secular government. They form a "civill body politick," a government that is offensive neither to the majority who were not religious refugees, nor to the minority who were religious refugees. They formed a secular government not based on divine right in order to further their ends.
Christian? I'd argue that it was — but Christian in its recognition of religious rights of others.
In any case, all the "quotes" in the world, stripped inaccurately from context by Barton or any other wag, do not change the laws that the founders wrote.
Seeker considering Ed Darrell's post…
In the quoting of the Mayflower Compact, for example, you bold an ancillary clause instead of the active clause: "doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid."
They swear in the presence of God, but they form a secular government. They form a "civill body politick," – Ed Darrell
and your reply to me…
I dispute the spirit in which you make these assertions for I have caught creationists deliberately misquoting people like Einstein and Stephen Jay Gould too often to take them at face value. – Cineaste
"Yes, well that dishonest tactic is used on all sides. But unless you can bring such a charge against my quotes, then you are judging unfairly. If I have been duped into abusing a quote, I will recant (but only on that quote – I believe that my point still stands)." – Seeker
…will you recant your quote since is now obviously a misrepresentation? Or, is actually Ed Darrell who is misquoting?
But they were christians:
"The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was drafted by the Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower seeking religious freedom."
:)
"Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick,…"
If Ed is trying to argue that the Pilgrims were not christians, he is slamming his head on a wall, so to speak….
And they were basically saying that they all promised to do everything for the good of each other and the colony.
"unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."
There were no laws that werent religious laws, I would venture to guess.
:)
If Ed is trying to argue that the Pilgrims were not christians, he is slamming his head on a wall, so to speak….
He's not arguing that Lawanda look…
Christian? I'd argue that it was — – Ed
But in Ed's quote here:
a government that is offensive neither to the majority who were not religious refugees, nor to the minority who were religious refugees.
ALL the pilgrims were religious refugees (christians) Now there MAY have been some sailors who were not but I would say THEY were the minority……But I cannot find anything anywhere saying they WEREN'T christians.
I would argue that their "government" was christian, for the advancement of christianity even; because of the first phrase in the document is the one I quoted above (from what I understand anyway):
"Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick,…"
"
But I cannot find anything anywhere saying they WEREN'T christians.
Ed is arguing the pilgrims were indeed Christians but there is a point you are missing. Think about the phrase "civill body politick" in the Mayflower Compact. They undeniably swore a Christian oath yet the "civill body politick" is not inherently Christian. The "civill body politick" is actually a social contract based specifically upon the political theories of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.
The "civill body politick" is actually a social contract based specifically upon the political theories of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau.
I need to amend this, the social contract was not based specifically from Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau but it is similarly based upon majority rule.
i.e. democratic principles from ancient Greece.
Is that what "common law" usually refers to?
Is that what "common law" usually refers to?
Here is the link for you Lawanda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid.
It is very clear that they were forming the "civil body politick" for two reasons:
– for their better ordering and preservation, AND
– the furtherance of the ends aforesaid – and those ends? They are NOT saying "and the furtherance of better ordering and preservation", that would be silly. The aforesaid ends for which they are establishing the civil govt are clear:
"Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia,"
It wasn't just for king and countrie, nor for the generic "glory of God", but specifically also for the advancement of Christian faith, i.e. the worldwide spread and proclomation of the gospel.
If the civil govt interferes with this, or perhaps even fails to support it, then we are off what these men intended.
"Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just & equall lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."
It says right there, in quote itself, that advancement of their faith is why they took the "voyage" but they entered into a social contract so they could survive.
Furthermore, support from wikipedia…
Many of the passengers knew that earlier settlements in the New World had failed due to a lack of government, and the Mayflower Compact was in essence a social contract in which the settlers consented to follow the rules and regulations of the government for the sake of survival. The government, in return, would derive its power from the consent of the governed.
So there you have it. The pilgrims swore, by God, and willingly and enthusiastically agreed to enter a secular social contract. If you want to debate that secular nature of social contracts, I am at your service sir :)
Will you recant Seeker? I think not. :)
So, when they say that they are setting up the civil government for " the furtherance of the ends aforesaid", what ends do you think they are referring to?
Also, the Pilgrims were neither the first colony or the largest. These were the Virginia Company in Jamestown 1607 and the Massachusetts Bay Colony respectively. The Pilgrims were a minority who were eventually absorbed into the larger Massachusetts Bay Colony.
"the furtherance of the ends aforesaid" refers to "the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia." This takes a back seat to survival! One can not preach when one is dead. In order to survive, they had to work together, which means form a government that is inclusive everyone, even minorities, for it was a small colony that almost starved regardless. Ed is NOT arguing that the Pilgrims were secular. He is arguing, I believe, that these Christians signed a social contract based upon majority rule to survive first, spread Puritanism second. The fact is, the compact was a social contract founded upon the principles of Greek democracy, or majority rule. The ancient Greeks were clearly not Christian and their laws and government equally unchristian.
If sometimes I sound like I am going into too much detail, forgive me. When the only tool that is effective in such a discussion is a hammer, all the counter arguments start to resemble nails.
What makes you think that it was majority rule? Even our country is not a majority rule "democracy", which one of our founders (i think) called "anarchy," it is a representative republic, based on the rule of law, not majority, laws which were based on the judeo christian ethic and pattern of objective truth given by the Law Giver (the God of Nature AND the God of scripture).
Of course, the other colonies you mentioned came explicitly to spread the gospel, and that is well documented.
My main point is that the desire for a secular government unattached from the Christian religion is an ideal for most secularists, but it was not an ideal shared by the majority of founders (Jefferson aside).
The fact that almost every significant government document from that era implicitly or explicitly mentions the Christian God and even the spread of the gospel shows that, while they were aware of the abuse of religion and religious power, they were also of the mind that a biblical approach to government, law, and morality were the obvious and best way to run a country, nay the world too, since He was and is the Lord of all.
What makes you think that it was majority rule?
“…pilgrims realised that they were in land uncharted by the London Company. For this reason the Mayflower Compact was passed, based upon a majoritarian model and to proclaim the settlers’ allegiance to the king.”
– Wiki Mayflower Compact entry
Of course, the other colonies you mentioned came explicitly to spread the gospel, and that is well documented.
The “spread the gospel” documentation I am most familiar with from that time are The Salem Witch Trials which was “the result of a period of factional infighting and Puritan witch hysteria.”
My main point is that the desire for a secular government unattached from the Christian religion is an ideal for most secularists, but it was not an ideal shared by the majority of founders (Jefferson aside).
I’ll repost this for the 3rd or 4th time… (hammer, hammer,hammer)
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington’s alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, “Life of Washington.” The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington’s own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington’s initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”
John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”
JOHN ADAMS
In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, “My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist.”
In an essay on “Toleration,” Franklin wrote:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
“It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s Autobiography)
Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. “
——————————————————–
…they were also of the mind that a biblical approach to government, law, and morality were the obvious and best way to run a country, nay the world too, since He was and is the Lord of all.
– Seeker
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “
– Thomas Paine (Founding Father)
Seeker no matter how badly you want the Constitution of United States and The Declaration of Independence to reflect your dream of a nation founded on biblical principles, the very words of our founding fathers contradict you.
I know you think that you have some ironclad case based on your carefully chosen references, but the opposite case can be made equally well, if not better. So what do you do with that?
I know you think that you have some ironclad case based on your carefully chosen references, but the opposite case can be made equally well, if not better. So what do you do with that?
I would say that if there is a case for a Christian Nation, "that can be made even better" then the burden of proof rests with you to make it. It is impossible to make such a case though without first explaining all this.
It's just too much reasonable evidence to ignore, and I don't refer to just the small blockquote I presented above, but the entire piece by Dr. Walker.
And btw, I am not arguing for a "christian nation" – I've already discussed that the term could mean many things. What I have tried to argue are many points downplayed or contradicted by hard core secularists, including:
1. Most, if not all of our founding colonies were groups of biblical Christians looking to live out and spread the gospel (historical fact), free from government interference.
2. Many, perhaps most of our founders were Christians, or influenced strongly by a biblical world view, and regarded Christianity to be necessary for a culture to function under a free, republican government.
3. Few of our founders envisioned a complete and narrow secularist "separation of church and state" where biblical moral values such as chastity, fidelity, traditional marriage, and other mainstays of a healthy culture were considered out of bounds for public life and legislation.
I push on these things because secularists totally ignore the importance of the Christian heritage of our country, and treat it like an anomaly, when really, like the rise of the West in general, it is the driving force. The religion that the enlightenment resisted is not the robust protestantism of Luther and Calvin et al., but the corrupt Catholic church.
And of itself, the ideas enlightenment and humanist movements are insufficient to govern mankind, whose reason, while it should be used, can not be trusted without a balance of power with the Divine, IMHO>
Few of our founders envisioned a complete and narrow secularist "separation of church and state" where biblical moral values such as chastity, fidelity, traditional marriage, and other mainstays of a healthy culture were considered out of bounds for public life and legislation.
Our founders envisioned a secularist "wall" between church and state as I pointed out. It's in the constitution as I pointed out.
Chastity, fidelity and traditional marriage are very important to Evangelicals today. Why you make such a big deal out of nothing is beyond good sense. Call me crazy, but I think Iraq, Darfur, our trade deficit, education, etc. are much bigger issues. Why the focus on petty issues? It's like being concerned with Britany Spears breaking up with K. Fed when Bush has taken away your right to confront your accusers. A right that people have had for 800 years is gone and you're more concerned about a couple of gay women getting married in Arizona? Your priorities are really messed up.
The religion that the enlightenment resisted is not the robust protestantism of Luther and Calvin et al., but the corrupt Catholic church.
You are blaming the Catholic church (shakes head at the incredible irony). Catholics are the original Christians and if there is any religious driving force of Western Civilization, it is the Catholics. Protestants owe a debt to Catholics because you derived your beliefs from them. I can prove it if you want to deny it. With out Catholicism, Evangelicals wouldn't even exist.
And of itself, the ideas enlightenment and humanist movements are insufficient to govern mankind
Fact: our country was founded on the ideas of the enlightenment. Fact: the government founded upon these secular ideals are what makes America great. You know things like democracy and liberty; much more important than Evangelical ideas like gay marriage.
Many, perhaps most of our founders were Christians, or influenced strongly by a biblical world view, and regarded Christianity to be necessary for a culture to function under a free, republican government.
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
– Thomas Paine (Founding Father)
Our founders envisioned a secularist "wall" between church and state as I pointed out. It's in the constitution as I pointed out.
If you pointed out that such a thing was in the constitution, you lied. The word "wall", not to mention "separation" are NOT in those documents, for a very good reason. They are not intended as you suppose. As I argued convincingly, while church and state *power* are intended to be separate, and specific denominational support by government is not allowed, Christian morality is most certainly expected to be part of our laws – even such laws as sodomy laws, which I am against, are, IMHO, constitutional. I just think them unwise and intrusive. But I am not against them for constitutional reasons per se.
Call me crazy, but I think Iraq, Darfur, our trade deficit, education, etc. are much bigger issues. Why the focus on petty issues?
You are crazy. Because they are NOT petty. The lack of chastity leads to teen pregnancy and disease, which fuel poverty and the KILLING of 5000 children per day. The lack of fidelity in marriage leads to divorce and single parent homes.I don't call those petty.
You are blaming the Catholic church (shakes head at the incredible irony). Catholics are the original Christians and if there is any religious driving force of Western Civilization, it is the Catholics. Protestants owe a debt to Catholics because you derived your beliefs from them.
I understand your point, but you are ignorant of much of history (shakes head with incredulity at the gullibility of modern liberals to liberal revisionist history).
Protestants derive their faith from the BIBLE, sola scirptura. The Catholics may have carried the torch for generations, but somewhere along the line, they got waaaaay off, hence, the reformation. They persecuted true Christians for centuries leading up to the reformation, and unfortunately, were the "face" of Christianity to the enlightenment thinkers – but they had long since stopped being essential and true Christianity.
Your priorities are really messed up.
Well yes, everyone who does not share the liberal hollywood value hierarchy must be messed up. When you get interested in saving 5000 children a day from the abortionist's knife (and needle and caustic chemicals and crushing forceps), then you can talk about priorities.
Fact: our country was founded on the ideas of the enlightenment.
Fact: You are willfully ignorant and blind of the central role that the Christian scriptures and faith played in the formation of our country.
Thomas Paine (Founding Father)
Sigh. Yes, Paine was anti-faith. I'll not return to the plethora of pro-faith quotes of the other founding fathers, including ones that chastised Paine for being an idiot for his anti-faith stance.
I agree that some of the thought that went into our formation was secular, but not in its entirety. We are NOT a secular country with a secular government. Our history, and the obvious vestiges of it, show the pervasive influence of the scriptures and the hand of Providence. To miss that is to be an ungodly, ungrateful, uneducated bigot.
If you pointed out that such a thing was in the constitution, you lied. The word "wall", not to mention "separation" are NOT in those documents, for a very good reason.
The separation of church and state is implicit in the constitution silly:
The lack of chastity leads to teen pregnancy and disease, which fuel poverty and the KILLING of 5000 children per day. The lack of fidelity in marriage leads to divorce and single parent homes.I don't call those petty.
You are lying to yourself about chastity. Comparitively speaking you don't give a rat's ass about poverty, teen pregnancy or killing babies. These are just excuses for you. What you really care about is that your daughter might have, God forbid, sex before she is married. It wouldn't matter to you if she and her lover were 21+ years old, on birth control and tested for venereal diseases, what would make you go crazy is that she was sleeping with a man out of wedlock. Get over it and stop pretending that disease, pregnancy, etc. are more important to you than being self righteous.
They (Catholics) persecuted true Christians for centuries leading up to the reformation, and unfortunately, were the "face" of Christianity to the enlightenment thinkers – but they had long since stopped being essential and true Christianity.
Ya, those Catholics are not even true Christians although we Evangelical Protestants owe our entire religion to Catholics. We Protestants broke off from the Catholic church so that makes Catholics wrong. It's the truth I tell you! You must believe me! Take my word for it! I wouldn't Lie! I'm not biased!
When you get interested in saving 5000 children a day from the abortionist's knife (and needle and caustic chemicals and crushing forceps), then you can talk about priorities.
Right, every sperm is sacred. I just had sex with my girlfriend and there was a veritable holocaust of dead babies left over. Are you interested in saving them Seeker? What's that you say? Most Evangelicals think personhood starts at conception? I just scratched my nose. Each cell from my nose has the potential to become a human being via cloning. Oh no! More dead babies!
You are willfully ignorant and blind of the central role that the Christian scriptures and faith played in the formation of our country.
The Salem witch trials being a great example. The Puritans left us that particular legacy of ignorance as an example of what happens when religious superstitions are mixed with government.
We are NOT a secular country with a secular government. Our history, and the obvious vestiges of it, show the pervasive influence of the scriptures and the hand of Providence. To miss that is to be an ungodly, ungrateful, uneducated bigot.
Uneducated bigot, eh? You dismiss the quotes of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine as anti-religious. Nice move, considering they were the authors of the Constitution. Seeker, cry about it all you want. You can't change facts. Sorry bro, but you need to start dealing with reality. We are not a "christian nation" founded upon superstition and ignorance like you want. The United States is a secular nation founded on reason and the philosophies of The Age of Enlightenment.
– The Treaty of Tripoli
I think you can look at this from a business man's point of view. Take for instance our preacher (also my dh's boss…)
He runs a HUGE business. He is a christian and he hires a lot of christians. While he builds the character of his business on his christian principles, he does not only do "christian" business.
In other words, he operates his business ethically because he is a christian. But his business is not considered a christian business, because that is really not a viable concept.
I think it is the same idea as the government, really.
He runs a HUGE business. He is a christian and he hires a lot of christians. While he builds the character of his business on his christian principles, he does not only do "christian" business.
Well how about this…?
He runs a HUGE business. He is a Atheist and he hires a lot of Atheists. While he builds the character of his business on his Atheist principles, he does not only do "Atheist" business.
In other words, he operates his business ethically because he is a Atheist. But his business is not considered a Atheist business, because that is really not a viable concept.
I think it is the same idea as the government, really.
Exactly.
If only Seeker could see it like that. He would not like the idea of Atheists running the country. Atheists believe in secularism and freedom of religion like our founders, and the separation of church and state prevents Christianity from becoming ascendant over other religions. Seekers words about Catholics not being true Christians show that what he really means by "Christian Nation" is "Protestant Nation."
I would not like the idea of Atheists running the country, myself. But I also do not like the idea of people taking away the seperation of church and state, either.
You should get to know some Atheists then. They are ordinary people like you and I. In fact, they get divorced a little less than Christians.
I have a questions about atheism. But you are not an atheist are you?
But I wondered what does Richard Dawkins's (and people like him) life revolve around? Evolutionary biology? That seems like a sad, cold, hopeless life to me. :(
You are lying to yourself about chastity.
Oh yes, promiscuity has nothing to do with teen pregnancy, disease, and broken marriages later in life. (thumping head with hand).
thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Yes, well, why don't you be more precise, instead of misleading readers into thinking that this verbiage is in our Constitution? It is not.
What is interesting about that letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson is a quote that I think we can all agree on:
This is why I am against abortion, since the ill is done to the child.
We Protestants broke off from the Catholic church so that makes Catholics wrong.
Even by their own admission, the church of that time was corrupt in both doctrine and practice. The true gospel was maintained in the scriptures, which by that time they had abandoned for centuries with their crazy doctrines. It's no wonder that most reformers though the Papal seat the Antichrist (those that didn't consider Islam the Antichrist ;)
Uneducated bigot, eh? You dismiss the quotes of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine as anti-religious.
I have not dismissed them at all. I have thrice agreed that some secularism was part of the original mix, but that the extreme anti-religious secuarlism which you so ably exhibit is not shared by our founders (save Paine).
All I am saying is that you IGNORE the quotes to the contrary, and the Christian history of our country, picking and choosing the few, though important, secular quotes of your liking.
He would not like the idea of Atheists running the country. Atheists believe in secularism and freedom of religion like our founders,
They most certainly do not. And their anti-religious hatred is not even disguised – and if atheists gain control, they will rail against any moral legislation because they think it religion – like pro-life or pro-family legislation.
The outcome of having atheists in charge is that we will end up with gutter of sexual morality, and in totalitarianism (remember that lovely Russian atheism?), because atheism can't help but suppress religion – it can't deny its own hatred.
The Treaty of Tripoli
Ok, so you've got this document. Why have you not answered any of my quotes? All you can do is do your own quote mining. Whoopdie doo.
My point stands – this is not meant as some secularist's paradise. Get used to it. I'm done.
BTW, you are misusing the Tripoli verbiage, and here is why
I have a questions about atheism. But you are not an atheist are you?
No, I am agnostic. I believe that there is a chance that there is a creator. If there a creator though, he/she/it is NOT the Christian God or Allah or Zeus or Vishnu etc… The true creator would be as inconceivable to us as we are to an amoeba.
This is what I am agnostic about…
But I wondered what does Richard Dawkins’s (and people like him) life revolve around? Evolutionary biology? That seems like a sad, cold, hopeless life to me. :(
If he Richard Dawkins only lived for evolutionary biology I doubt he would get out of bed in the morning. Richard Dawkins has a wife and a daughter who he loves very much. Remember his letter to his daughter Juliet? I’m sure he takes just as much pleasure in everyday things as you and I do like a good meal or a beautiful sunset. He loves life. Love does not seem “sad, cold” or “hopeless” to me.
May I ask the same of Christians? If a devout Christian’s life revolves around God, and she loses her faith, does this mean that her life falls apart and she becomes sad, cold and hopeless? Like this lady, Julia Sweeny.
I have found that the saddest most hopeless times in my life are when I lose my faith in God. Because I neglect my spirit. And everything else.
And that is something I wanted to address. I have seen several times on this website the question like this: "Would you start being a bad person if you stopped believing in the Bible?" (Not those words, but the principle)
And my answer is, I am actually not a perfect person even though I do know of God and his word. Because I sometimes lose faith. And when I do lose faith, YES, that is exactly when I do the bad things I do.
And if I did not have to worry about my soul and how God thinks, then I would be like many people out there (even some who claim christianity.) and say WHO CARES, and do whatever it is I feel like. Which, I still do this to an extent, but not without my conscience stabbing me in the heart because of the wisdom I have read over and over in the bible.
I have loved-ones who were raised JUST LIKE ME who are NOT christians. They do not read the Bible, they do not care. They have the major problems many people face in our day, with a soap opera life of immorality; and their kids have serious problems.
My family have the same struggles thrown at us from the world, but we face them with the wisdom the bible gives us. Personally I think this gives us an upper hand in that elusive pursuit of happiness.
:)
Anyhow, thanks for listening to me ramble on and on. I know it doesnt really affect you. I'll stop now! :-p
Oh yes, promiscuity has nothing to do with teen pregnancy, disease, and broken marriages later in life. (thumping head with hand).
Repeating here so you see the point…
Comparatively speaking you don’t give a rat’s ass about poverty, teen pregnancy or killing babies. These are just excuses for you. What you really care about is that your daughter might have, God forbid, sex before she is married. It wouldn’t matter to you if she and her lover were 21+ years old, on birth control and tested for venereal diseases, what would make you go crazy is that she was sleeping with a man out of wedlock. Get over it and stop pretending that disease, pregnancy, etc. are more important to you than being self righteous.
I have thrice agreed that some secularism was part of the original mix, but that the extreme anti-religious secularism which you so ably exhibit is not shared by our founders (save Paine).
Secularists believe there should be total separation of church and state. That is what the word means. So if that is what is meant by secularism, what is “extreme” secularism? The words “wall of separation between church and State” prove Thomas Jefferson was a secularist in the same way you think I am a secularist.
The words “Under God” were added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. They were not in the original version written by Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy in 1892. “Christian Socialist” may sound like an oxymoron to you Seeker but it’s not. The original pledge goes:
“What follows is Bellamy’s own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:”
As you see, Bellamy was a Christian who agreed with secularist Thomas Jefferson, that Liberty and Justice are what our nation stands for not biblical principles.
Seeker you problem is one of special pleading
You want a complete separation of church and state in regard to the Islam and the United States Government but you don’t think this applies to Protestantism. Tough Cookies!
They most certainly do not.
Unsupported assertion.
And their anti-religious hatred is not even disguised…
How many Atheists have slammed jet planes into buildings in the name of their religion? It seems you religious types are more hateful than atheists.
The outcome of having atheists in charge is that we will end up with gutter of sexual morality, and in totalitarianism.
That’s your “Christian Nation” propaganda machine working overtime. Your such a prude Seeker.
So if that is what is meant by secularism, what is "extreme" secularism?
No, your use, and secualrists' use of such words as "superstition, fairy tale, source of most evil in the world" – that is, your anti-religious stance, and of the mouthpieces of atheism like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are at least worrisome, if not alarming.
The words "wall of separation between church and State" prove Thomas Jefferson was a secularist in the same way you think I am a secularist.
The problem with this is in interpretation. I don't consider the natural family (father and mother) and the protection of the unborn to be a religious issue, but ethical and moral issues. So in that sense, I agree with Jefferson.
Would Jefferson condemn the placement of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court, or the picture of the Baptism of Pocahontas in the Capital Rotunda, or Washington's and Lincoln's calls to national prayer and references to the Providence of God? I don't think so, but secularists seem to want to cleanse our history of not only the mentions of Christian faith, but of its central importance.
"Would you start being a bad person if you stopped believing in the Bible?"
…when I do lose faith, YES, that is exactly when I do the bad things I do.
Well that is horrible but I don't believe you for a second. I think that if you lost your faith you would still love your kids and your kids would love you back. You only tell me that you would become a bad person to convince me, or yourself, that we need God to be good.
Lawanda if you lost your faith, you wouldn't be comforted by your religion anymore, but you would still be a good person. You would still be able to love other people like your children and they would love you back. You would still be able to take pride and joy in the first steps of your baby. You would still be able to smile when you hear your children laugh. You would still be, in every respect, the same good person. The only difference would be that you wouldn't have an invisible friend holding your hand.
You want a complete separation of church and state in regard to the Islam and the United States Government but you don't think this applies to Protestantism. Tough Cookies!
As I have often said, I am not for a theocracy, I am only resisting the secular fundamentalist pressures in our country. I have clearly outlined that:
– in questionable "gray zone" morality issues, the government should be neutral
– religious law can not become civil law, but conservative morality, if it has an ethical proof and argument, can be made into law
I repeat that the tactics and arguments and legislation that secularists and atheists support are not neutral, but anti-religion, anti conservative morality (because they are pro-individual to a fault, that fault being to the hurt of others and the public welfare), and anti-Christian in their historical revisionism.
No, your use, and secualrists' use of such words as "superstition, fairy tale, source of most evil in the world" – that is, your anti-religious stance, and of the mouthpieces of atheism like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are at least worrisome, if not alarming.
You're conflating atheism with secularism again Seeker. My prayer to God is, "Please Lord, enlighten Seeker so he can tell the difference." The words "superstition" and "fairy tale" denote how much credence I give to Christianity and Islam. None. This does not mean I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam anymore than I am anti-fairy or anti-leprechaun. On the contrary, practice your religion to your heart's content. Just Keep both Islam and Christianity out of our government and schools. "Source of most evil" is your own phrase. I think you have me confused with Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins.
You're conflating atheism with secularism again Seeker. My prayer to God is, "Please Lord, enlighten Seeker so he can tell the difference." The words "superstition" and "fairy tale" denote how much credence I give to Christianity and Islam.
Politically speaking, they are indistinguishable to me. Sure, secularists feign less vitriol towards religion, and some may mean it.
Politically speaking, they are indistinguishable to me.
That's because of your special pleading.
The words "superstition" and "fairy tale" denote how much credence I give to Christianity and Islam. None. This does not mean I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam anymore than I am anti-fairy or anti-leprechaun. On the contrary, practice your religion to your heart's content. Just Keep both Islam and Christianity out of our government and schools.
Just Keep both Islam and Christianity out of our government and schools.
Ok, and you keep your value system out of the schools too. See how much sense that makes? I am all for keeping religious indoctrination out of schools, but not religious studies or conservative values that YOU consider religious.
BTW, you never answered my response to the Treaty of Tripoli.
Well that is horrible but I don't believe you for a second. I think that if you lost your faith you would still love your kids and your kids would love you back. You only tell me that you would become a bad person to convince me, or yourself, that we need God to be good.
Hey, I am no angel. I have done bad things. Many times, actually. And I am not the best mom in the world either. But seriously, when I am not focusing on my religious beliefs- thinking them over, reading the bible, telling them to my kids- I do falter. Because they are intrinsic with my feelings of goodness and value of my loved ones.
When I read in the bible—
Ephesians 6:4 "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." that helps me focus on my responsibility toward them (and obviously my husband's).
And when I read this in 1 John 3:
17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
I am reminded to teach them (and myself) to be compassionate toward others. And not just say "I love you" but DO it.
And when I read this in James 2:
15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
I am reminded to teach them (and myself of course) to help those who need help.
And when I read this in 1 Timothy 6:
17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
I am reminded that I don't need to be rich to be do good. And that money isnt everything. And I am reminded to teach my kids to share….And to be open and talk and communicate!
So yes, it makes me a better mom, I think. I am not sure I would be "bad" without those words in my head… but I am sure I wouldnt be as "good" :-p
Lawanda if you lost your faith, you wouldn't be comforted by your religion anymore, but you would still be a good person. You would still be able to love other people like your children and they would love you back. You would still be able to take pride and joy in the first steps of your baby. You would still be able to smile when you hear your children laugh. You would still be, in every respect, the same good person. The only difference would be that you wouldn't have an invisible friend holding your hand.
Thank you for your vote of confidence. :) But the bible DOES comfort me. I am very glad to have that comfort, because I think life is pretty harsh. And I like to comfort other people with it too. And when I listened to Julia Sweeny's testimony about her loss of faith, I was crying. Because that was just so sad.
if you lost your faith, you wouldn't be comforted by your religion anymore, but you would still be a good person.
Actually, I lost my faith, and by comparison, I was NOT as good a person as before, or after I regained my faith. Healthy faith changes lives for the better (by definition ;).
And btw, two great books on losing your faith are:
Dance of a Fallen Monk
Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief
Thank you for your vote of confidence. :) But the bible DOES comfort me. I am very glad to have that comfort, because I think life is pretty harsh. And I like to comfort other people with it too. And when I listened to Julia Sweeny's testimony about her loss of faith, I was crying. Because that was just so sad.
That the bible comforts you is my point. This is the same as going to the doctor and being diagnosed with terminal cancer and not wanting him to tell you because it's more comforting not to know. I am the type of person who would want to know the harsh truth, that I will soon die of cancer, even though it's not comforting.
But seriously, when I am not focusing on my religious beliefs- thinking them over, reading the bible, telling them to my kids- I do falter.
I don't believe you. I can't believe that you would just go berserk and start killing people or something without God. If God is the only thing keeping you from just killing everyone and doing whatever you want, that does not speak well of you. I don't believe it.
Healthy faith changes lives for the better (by definition ;).
I found when that when I lost my faith my life changed for the better.
BTW, you never answered my response to the Treaty of Tripoli.
Please clarify your argument. What do you find misleading about "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." And you never answered my response about the pledge of allegiance.
Ok, and you keep your value system out of the schools too. See how much sense that makes?
It makes perfect sense. None of my religious values are in schools nor would I want them there.
I am all for keeping religious indoctrination out of schools, but not religious studies or conservative values that YOU consider religious.
"Religious studies" belong in Sunday School, Church, Mosque, or Synagogue. They don't belong in public schools. "Conservative values" are something Republican parents should teach their children not public schools or governments. If I feel that "religious studies" and "conservative values" are best expressed via Islam and wanted them in public schools and government, you would throw a fit. But because of your special pleading you feel that Protestant values are okay. No Seeker! You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
Also Lawanda, what your are doing is cherry picking passages from the bible. You only pick the ones you think are good. I noticed that you didn't pick passages from the bible like…
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
– Leviticus 25:44-46
You don't teach your children that slavery is okay even though the bible says it is.
I do not pick the verses that do not apply to my situation. But that is how we all are, with any kind of law or rule or reasoning.
Remember that Olberman video you posted?
The third Ammandment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Well I guess I am glad I dont have to, but how many times are you going to see me quote that one? None until or unless the situation arises.
It does not apply to me at all. And so I do not pick it to live by or elaborate on. Or any of those dumb laws on that "dumb laws" website. (like the roadkill one. ICK)
The old testament laws do not apply to me either.
Do you remember our discussion about slavery? It is just as much a part of life to have followers (masters) and leaders (slaves) as it is to have males and females or Chinese and Italians. Do you see what I mean?
And also do you remember when we discussed the Old Testament and why I do not have to follow it as a christian. It is the old law. The law that was made more and more minutely detailed because the Israelites kept getting further and further from God. (kind of like our laws keep getting so minutely nitpicky because our people cannot control themselves…)
To quote the New Testament again (although a different place than I did before)
Galatians 3:
19Wherefore then serveth the law? (this is the old testament, which you will find if you read it in the entire context) It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
———————————————–
So I teach my children that :) I never even heard of the third ammendment until that Olberman video. I guess my teachers only picked the ones that were good. :)
And I meant … followers (slaves) and leaders (masters) …
:p Sorry bout that! Tired. My only excuse ;)
Well I guess I am glad I dont have to, but how many times are you going to see me quote that one? None until or unless the situation arises.
The difference is, I quoted Olbermann because he was relevant. You would not ever quote Leviticus 25:44-46 to your children, that slavery is okay. Owning another human being as property is wrong and evil.
It is just as much a part of life to have followers (masters) and leaders (slaves) as it is to have males and females or Chinese and Italians. Do you see what I mean?
No, you're quibbling. I'm not talking about followers. I am talking about slaves. Lawanda, slavery is a bad thing. Just because the bible tells you it's okay to own slaves does not make it so.
And also do you remember when we discussed the Old Testament and why I do not have to follow it as a christian. It is the old law.
Yes, that's my point. It's old so you cherry pick the ones that you still think are relevant. You just cherry picked more passages from the bible for me as an example.
The important thing is, you wouldn't go on a killing spree or something if you lost your faith. That means that something else, other than the bible, keeps you from becoming a murderess. And back to your original question that started all this, about "Richard Dawkins and Atheists." Do you understand that Richard Dawkins is happy and loves his family and is loved in turn by his family?
Ugh! All italics again.
Italics gone?
Hmm
I know the Olberman video was relevant. But the Third Ammendment is not.
And so we pretty much ignore it dont we? Or cherry pick the other ones, which we deem more relevant.
:)
"The important thing is, you wouldn't go on a killing spree or something if you lost your faith. That means that something else, other than the bible, keeps you from becoming a murderess."
I agree to an extent. But only because "no murder" is not only a commandment in the Bible, it is also in my country's and community's law.
But you make me wonder… if it is something already in us that makes us good, then why is it that inner-city kids join gangs and murder other kids?
Have they evolved into less empathetic people or can they be saved from that kind of life by TEACHING them better values?
In other words: Why do you say some kids who live in the inner cities are growing up to be murderers?
(I would say it is lack of Bible teaching, because that is where I read it most often.) :)
And on this.
"No, you're quibbling. I'm not talking about followers. I am talking about slaves. Lawanda, slavery is a bad thing. Just because the bible tells you it's okay to own slaves does not make it so."
I do not overlook a verse in the bible just because it is politically incorrect. My kids are aware that slavery was a part of life in certain eras of time. And they are aware of what the new testament says about the old testament. (It is for our learning, not for us to obey every detail)
It is all about context, really. I have read the whole bible. I am aware of what it says about slavery in the Old and the New Testament. But I am also aware of how it says the words are to be divided and applied.
And whether you like it or not, there are slaves today. If you want to get paid a wage, you will do what your boss says. Instead of having to take room and board and food (or the lack thereof), you get money to go out and get your own room and board and food. I know people who have been "owned" by the Union and the Union store. And the peopel who enlist in the military are basically slaves.
Some people are nearly a literal slave to their job. But then there is also more of a spiritual slavery, if you think about it.
Some people are a slave to their passions.
Some people are enslaved by a jerk of a husband or wife.
Some people are enslaved by poverty.
Some people are enslaved by drug addiction. Or their parents' drug addiction. :(
Some people are slaves of their peers.
One of the best things you can learn from the bible is that you can pick your spiritual master. You can either enslave yourself to a life of bad things, or you can enslave yourself to a life of good things.
No matter what your actual situation in life is. :)
While we are on this though…. I feel like a slave to my kids most times. (usually while doing the endless laundry. heh heh)
:)
I know the Olberman video was relevant. But the Third Ammendment is not. And so we pretty much ignore it dont we?
You lost me. No, we don't ignore it. Wars happen on American soil too. Also, the Bill of Rights is not the Bible, so it can change if an amendment is no longer relevant. You can't amend the bible so you're forced to cherry pick only relevant passages.
I agree to an extent. But only because "no murder" is not only a commandment in the Bible, it is also in my country's and community's law.
So the only reason you don't murder is because the bible tells you it's wrong and because it's against the law. Come on! You know very well that deep inside you are not a murderer. You are an ethical human being with the moral "killing is wrong" even without your faith or the law. You are just saying this stuff to me because I backed you into a corner.
But you make me wonder… if it is something already in us that makes us good, then why is it that inner-city kids join gangs and murder other kids?
I think the answer to that depends upon the individual. A lot of those kids also believe in God. Remember my answer to you when you asked me.
And yet, you base your "philosophical" – moral, I guess- views on it. Or do you? I am still trying to figure out where you get your "morals" from (and what they are.). You have said it is not science.
My answer was..
No, it's not science. Philosophers have tried to answer this question for millennia and they still can't agree. I'll give you my personal answer, as one human being to another. I believe that all humans have empathy (1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.) I believe human empathy is the source of our morality. I believe empathy is in our DNA. So, morality is a our human capacity for reason working upon this innate empathy we have. This is how we know what is right from what is wrong. This is my own idea though, I don't know if others feel like this. There are people who have condemned me here for holding this belief.
Seeker wouldn't write a post about where morality comes from like I requested for some reason. He must really not like me. But I wanted to share these with you anyway. I thought you might like them and they articulate my answer so well!
How Morality Works
BBC Horizon: Richard Dawkins – Nice guys finish first
Some people are nearly a literal slave to their job. But then there is also more of a spiritual slavery, if you think about it.
I am not speaking about spiritual slavery. The only kind of slavery I am referring to is owning another human being as property. This is the slavery Leviticus 25:44-46 refers to. I think slavery is wrong and so, I think this passage is also wrong.
I found when that when I lost my faith my life changed for the better.
Then perhaps your faith would not fall under the descriptor of "healthy faith." When I lost my faith, it was because mine was not healthy, but legalistic.
Please clarify your argument. What do you find misleading about "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
I think the text I quoted was quite clear. The statement was made in a specific context – in trying to de-escalate the religious tensions between ourselves and the Barbary Muslims, it was being emphasized that we don't have a state-sponsored or official religion like England. It was not Christian nation v. Islamic." You want to take it out of context, and in exclusion to all of th other data from the period. While out of context, it sounds like a definitive global statement about the US, in context, it is much less.
It does NOT mean that our founders were not of a Christian mindset or persuasion, nor does it mean that the founders did not believe in the value, truth, or essential need for Christian faith, as evidenced by the many other quotes that show such.
"Conservative values" are something Republican parents should teach their children not public schools or governments.
Same with liberal values? You sound like a Communist – seriously. Only the official state position (which is anti-religion) can be taught. Seriously, you can't deny conservative, non-religious values because you don't prefer them.
Seeker wouldn't write a post about where morality comes from like I requested for some reason. He must really not like me.
Sorry, missed that request. What do you mean by "where does morality come from?" Our sense of morality? Good and evil?
SLAVERY
For one simple but classical answer to the slavery accusation, see Part 1 and Part 2 by Gary Demar.
Then perhaps your faith would not fall under the descriptor of "healthy faith."
It was a healthy faith and I am better of without it. It was like a blindfold being removed and I was able to see the world as it really is.
I think the text I quoted was quite clear.
Yes, it is clear. Your quote specifically states our government was not founded upon the Christian Religion. You are trying to imply the founders didn't really mean what they said by saying it's "out of context". I have news for you: they did.
You sound like a Communist – seriously. Only the official state position (which is anti-religion) can be taught.
None of my religious values are in schools nor would I want them there. The words "superstition" and "fairy tale" denote how much credence I give to Christianity and Islam. None. This does not mean I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam anymore than I am anti-fairy or anti-leprechaun. On the contrary, practice your religion to your heart's content. Just Keep both Islam and Christianity out of our government and schools.
If I felt that "religious studies" and "conservative values" are best expressed via Islam and wanted them in public schools and government, you would throw a fit. But because of your special pleading you feel that Protestant values are okay to teach in schools. No Seeker! You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
What do you mean by "where does morality come from?" Our sense of morality?
Can you read my answer to Lawanda about where I thought morality came from? I'm tired of searching and pasting. That should provide enough insight to answer your question.
OK. I feel like secular, un-God values and philosophy are hogwash too. That does not mean I am anti-secular, it just means that I think your value system reflects your imaginary view of life instead of reality.
That's how you sound.
And I think Dawkins is a crackpot. A nice one, but an atheist militant short on facts and long on wind.
OK. I feel like secular, un-God values and philosophy are hogwash too. That does not mean I am anti-secular, it just means that I think your value system reflects your imaginary view of life instead of reality.
Seeker, I knew the above to be true from the very first day I commented on your blog about "Tiktaalik – evolution's savior." We are so far apart ideologically. I guess the only way I can synopsize it in terms you will actually give credence to, is to speak religiously.
Seeker – Maybe He sent you to my blog for a reason. God works in mysterious ways.
Cineaste – Or, it could be that I came upon your blog by my own actions via Google search using the keyword "Tiktaalik."
Which is "hogwash" and "imaginary?" Which reflects reality? That's the difference between you and me.
Seeker, I knew the above to be true from the very first day I commented on your blog
I was merely mimicking your nonsense to show you how silly it sounds.
Or, it could be that I came upon your blog by my own actions via Google search using the keyword "Tiktaalik."
Both free will and predestination work hand in hand. Total free will is an illusion which self-important humanists like to maintain, while religionists abuse the idea of predestination in order to avoid responsibility. You took an action, but give no credit to God. That's fine with me, but may not be accurate.
Even Judas was chosen by Jesus to fulfill God's purposes. And no, I am not comparing you directly to Judas. Only saying that what appears to be free will to you and I may in the end have more divine consequence than we think.
The words "superstition" and "fairy tale" denote how much credence I give to Christianity and Islam. None. This does not mean I am anti-Christian or anti-Islam anymore than I am anti-fairy or anti-leprechaun.
Both free will and predestination work hand in hand.
This is just your Calvinist (did I get that right) faith talking. There's no logic or science at work behind your words, just your religious faith. So I rationally dismiss predestination as irrelevant. That you dismiss me, Dawkins, atheists, secular humanists, Muslims, pagans and generally any person who does not believe in Jesus as Savior as "crackpots" is a given considering your religious fundamentalism.
About “Treaty of Tripoli” (circa 1797) and Joel Barlow’s English Translation of Arabic original, it has been established that ARTICLE XI (infamous America NOT a Christian religion founded country statement) was Joel Barlow’s intentional ADDITION or MODIFICATION to Arabic Original.
Why would he do that?
Simple, he was NOT a CHRISTian, like all the contemporary atheists, secular humanists, etc. in America today, and wanted to deliberately TAINT said TREATY (having binding authority as the law of the land) so as to subvert the original intent of said treaty.
Talk about abuse of power. Barlow’s subterfuge is a perfect example of how “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He was given the power by the Pres. to sign said treaty and he abused or took advantage (wholesale) of that opportunity and instead of proving himself trustworthy, proved he was a man of dishonest repute seeking to take personal advantage.
Again, ARTICLE XI is NOT even in the ARABIC ORIGINAL!
All these separation of church and state atheist advocates have all seized upon one man’s LIE or intentional insertion of what was NEVER even in the Arabic original in order to fabricate and perpetuate their modern-day myth that America was never Christian in any sense or never founded on Biblical principles.
Evolutionists are still doing that today.
If you tell a LIE long enough people will believe it was never more true than regarding Joel Barlow and his poisoned pen that adulterated the Treaty of Tripoli by his nefarious addition of ARTICLE XI.
Instead of admitting that Barlow had an ax to grind and mistranslated or deliberately added ARTICLE XI to his English translation of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, atheists, humanists, etc. simply prevaricate ad nauseum in order to further perpetuate their nonsensical view that CHRIST, CHRISTianity, and the BIBLE had NOTHING whatsoever to do with AMERICA becoming the greatest FREE nation in the world.
Ironic how there’s is but a “house of cards” and so easily toppled by the TRUTH!
David Barton’s WALLBUILDERS website has more than enough proof to show how the majority of U.S. Constitution signers, for example, were CHRISTians and NOT mere DEISTS, because being a real MEMBER of a Presbyterian or other CHRISTian denomination at the time meant a lot more than just carrying a card like today. It actually meant you professed a saving faith in JESUS CHRIST as LORD of ALL!
It’s so laughable to listen to all these cynical atheists go on and on about this person being a deist and that person and America was never a Christian nation, yet when reputable historians like David Barton show numerous irrefutable proofs to the contrary they duck and dodge and deny such evidence exists. They’re NOT interested in the TRUTH, because if they were, the original state constitutions in their preambles are again proof sufficient to confirm once again America’s allegiance to and acceptance of God and the CHRISTian/BIBLICAL worldview as opposed to one that is pagan or agnostic/atheistic.
False premises like Joel Barlow’s deceptive addition of ARTICLE XI to the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli only serve again as ample evidence to the contrary to what atheists, humanists, etc. assert when they promulgate America is not and never was a nation founded upon the Christian religion. Their false premises are a fallible and fake foundation that can NEVER support the TRUTH, and thus can NEVER seriously stand the test of what it takes to truly uphold the “inalienable rights” or God-given rights nothing and no man can usurp, abrogate, or expunge whether by honest means, prestidigiation, or cold, calculated hostility towards the one true God, Yahweh, and his only begotten son, our savior, Yeshua, Jesus, the Christ.
Anyone with enough common sense, too, can simply see how different our country was in the 1800’s then it is today. Contempt for God and His word have NOT made us a greater nation or “free thinkers” as some would proudly boast, but instead eroded the blood-bought foundation of America the Free and the Home of the Brave.
“We the people” cannot divorce ourselves from Yahweh/Yeshua and insist on His divine protection from catastrophic events such as 9/11/01! This is absurd!
“We the people” should REPENT of our hubris and self-love sins for that is precisely what cast Lucifer permanently out of heaven and forever sealed his fate as Satan, the fallen one, the deceiver, the ‘father of lies.’
“We the people” should SEEK GOD while there is still time before it is too late and America is no more. There is a movement afoot called the New World Order and the power players make no bones about their designs to transform North America into one entity (i.e. merging Mexico, USA, and Canada) thus absolving all 3 sovereign nations sovereignty in order to precipitate their One World Government.
“We the People” should HUMBLE ourselves and PRAY that God has MERCY on us and shows us FAVOR in these latter times or violence will indeed erupt again more and more frequently and present itself through such hate-filled means as Islamic fascism (see American Congress for Truth website), bogus hate crimes legislation seeking to silence all opposition to homosexual lifestyles and abortion on demand.
Great is the outcry of the innocent blood being poured out upon the soil of this once great land because of the atrocities of abortion on demand. God will NOT tolerate the shedding of innocent blood and nations are judged NOW, not later in the hereafter as individuals.
America will either do as the Bible warns it should; namely: humble ourselves, repent, seek God, pray, and turn from our wicked ways (i.e. abortion, sexual immorality, idolatry, murder, etc.)or we will reap what we have sown as prophesied.
God will NOT be mocked and we will reap what we have sown.
There is a time and a place for judgement, and for America the time and place has come full circle. What “We the people” choose to do now determines what kind of future our children and grandchildren will either appreciate or loathe.
God help us all to return once again to the perfect love of our creator.
There is a WAR that exists in the ‘invisible’ spiritual realm that far exceeds any physical war being waged by mere men on earth at any time anywhere such as the one our nation is embroiled in now in Iraq. This spiritual war is between “good” and “evil” as is often depicted in blockbuster epic movies such as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Although just movies designed to entertain and make money, there is enough TRUTH behind these sagas or stories to learn from and yet “We the people” seem only interested in selfish gain and not God’s kingdom.
God and His holy angels have declared war on Satan and his fallen angels or demons since they were cast out of heaven for attempting to dethrone God as God. How pitiful to see our fellow men and women of today fall prey to Satan’s wiles and ways to become mere puppets on his spiritual stage to wage war in the physical realm against good and innocent lives seeking to pay homage to the great I AM instead of acquiescing allegiance to the fallen foe, the father of lies, Satan.
He is no match, though, because he is merely a ‘created being’ as all men are. We, too, are no match for God. We too sinfully exalt ourselves as Satan did on the throne of self when we deny God’s existence and/or harden our hearts as did Pharoah when confronted by Moses in Egypt long ago. This is foolish and suicidal.
Instead of denying or blaspheming God we should be humbling ourselves before Him and worshipping Him.
“We the People” have a choice to make in the visible realm of today to be lived out before our peers as either emissaries of darkness and destruction or messengers of mercy and disciples of faith, hope, and love.
I CORINTHIANS 13 rightly declares that LOVE is the greatest overcomer on earth. Although Disney movies recurring theme of “love conquers all” tends to overemphasize “romantic love,” still we are the creation of our Creator who is a jealous God with romantic designs for a “spotless bride” to one day in the offing wed His son, the “lamb who was slain.”
Our nation’s sins are great and hardly put us in the fairytale ending role of being that “spotless bride.” Therefore it is incumbent upon us as Americans to NOT give up or give in to the avalanche of lies or assault on TRUTH by our adversary, the “father of lies” because that is the same evil tactic the NAZIs used to brainwash a whole generation of youth and “We the People” are allowing or acquiescing in our role as parents and educators and religious leaders and statesmen or national leaders when we fail to “resist the devil” and even worse allow or worst of all embrace and love darkness or sin as is paraded every day on TV in morally bankrupt sitcoms like “Desperate Housewives” and “Sex in the City” or as seen in paid programming commercials for such smut as “Girls gone wild.”
We have become a nation gone adrift without a moral compass to guide us. We are opting for evil over good more and more. We are refusing to repent even after 9/11. We are poisoned to the core with avarice as evident each Christmas/Hannukah season. We have exalted SELF/SATAN’s evil spirit over our nation in the hedonistic pursuit of prideful power and lusts of the flesh drinking deeply from the draughts of darkness.
Noone can eschew the inevitable cataclysmic 2nd return of Christ as Lord of lords. He’s coming again. Make no mistake about that. All mankind was poised in the past looking FORWARD toward His incipient advent as the Christ Child, “Emmanuel,” God with us, and after His death and resurrection we presently look not only back @ His “once for all” suffering and sacrifice for sins of us all, but we too look again FORWARD to His imminent 2nd coming as Lord of all.
You see, TRUTH is always 2-sided. In this case, CHRISTians today must not only LOOK BACK to remember as we do in commmunion remembering His perfect sinless sacrifice for victory over Satan, sin, and death, but also LOOK FORWARD to His promised/prophesied 2nd coming as revealed to John in Revelation when all God’s enemies, including Satan, are silenced and in a moment vanquished!
How pathetic and pointless is the fool’s rant when he foolishly declares there is no god. Even the Psalms declare “the fool has said in his heart there is no god.”
I am NO FOOL if I choose to rely upon God and His Word for daily discipline and devote my life to serving Him because the rewards are eternal and separation from Him would be the ultimate consequence for my sinful rebellion against Him and His Word.
God does NOT desire man to end up in the place, “Lake of Fire,” designed for Satan and his demons. NO! God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should NOT perish, but have everlasting life.” JOHN 3:16
Now there is the TRUTH!
There is GOOD NEWS.
The Koran that Minnesota Congressman blasphemously placed his hand on as if to declare it equal to the Bible in America should have been enough to discredit him from ever serving in office, but that shows how far we as Americans have come in our tolerance of evil. We call evil good and good evil just like the N.T. says would happen in the end times when so many “apostasize” or FALL AWAY from the TRUTH. This Minnesota Congressman FELL AWAY from what religion he was raised in to follow ISLAM and yet the website I alluded to earlier, http://www.americancongressfortruth.com by Brigitte Gabriel, serves notice upon all such “apostates” and sympathizers that we will reap a very bitter sword of persecution if we don’t speak up and stand up for the TRUTH now.
Edmund Burke was right when he said, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
May “We the people” have the resolve like Brigitte Gabriel and NOT foolishly put our trust in manmade religion (lies) like Islam (symbolized by Minnesota rep. placing hand on Koran when sworn in), but instead remain resolved to be “One nation under God” that humbly declares “In God We Trust.”
BTW, Jefferson was NOT a believer in Islam, as the congressman intimated with his comments when sworn in by placing his hand on Jefferson’s Koran, but simply was studying it during his tenure as President during the 40 years of Barbary Piracy that extorted 10%-15% of all national budget for terrorist payoffs to Tripoli and other Muslim Countries waging the 1st official war on America as a new nation simply because we lacked a real NAVY to defend ourselves until John Adams presidency.
TRUTH is indeed stranger than fiction.
That man should be ashamed of himself and removed from public office for seeking to intentionally or otherwise shame the name of Thomas Jefferson and imply or intimate that He was an ardent follower of Allah or considering conversion to Islam. What a LIE! Impeach the contemptible congressman now!
After all is said and done only the TRUTH will remain.
What do you believe?
Will you humble yourself?
Will you repent?
Will you seek God?
Will you pray?
Will you turn from your wicked ways?
You have been warned and so your blood is NOT on my hands.
May God bless America.
May “We the People” remain “One nation under God.”
You go mac. You're a little over the top, but you can back me up anytime :D Welcome.
Well, lets examine some of Mac’s claims to make sure he is not just preaching to the choir.
1. About “Treaty of Tripoli” (circa 1797) and Joel Barlow’s English Translation of Arabic original, it has been established that ARTICLE XI (infamous America NOT a Christian religion founded country statement) was Joel Barlow’s intentional ADDITION or MODIFICATION to Arabic Original.
The treaty states categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversy or discord.
2. Why would he do that?
Simple, he was NOT a CHRISTian, like all the contemporary atheists, secular humanists, etc. in America today, and wanted to deliberately TAINT said TREATY
That’s why God put us here. We love to taint said treaty :)
3. Barlow’s subterfuge is a perfect example of how “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The corrupt Barlow, drunk with power, just couldn’t keep himself from writing secular language into the treaty. Ya, well thought out argument there.
4. Evolutionists are still doing that (saying America is a secular country) today.
Sounds like you are conflating evolution with secularism. They are in definition, unrelated.
5. If you tell a LIE long enough people will believe it
Case in point, Christianity.
6. …CHRIST, CHRISTianity, and the BIBLE had NOTHING whatsoever to do with AMERICA becoming the greatest FREE nation in the world.
Your Christian nationalism rears it’s ugly head. I think that America could be a much better country it’s people could be more tolerant of others and value science, ethics and education over superstition.
7. Ironic how there’s is but a “house of cards” and so easily toppled by the TRUTH!
Methinks Mac doth protest too much.
8. It’s so laughable to listen to all these cynical atheists go on and on about this person being a deist and that person and America was never a Christian nation, yet when reputable historians like David Barton show numerous irrefutable proofs to the contrary they duck and dodge and deny such evidence exists.
You may find the Jefferson bible interesting.
9. …to truly uphold the “inalienable rights” or God-given rights nothing and no man can usurp…
Specifically you are referring to, “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.”
Here is an interesting thought…
Having read what Mac has written so far, all he is saying is “It is obvious I am right” and not really making a real argument.
10. Anyone with enough common sense, too, can simply see how different our country was in the 1800’s then it is today. Contempt for God and His word have NOT made us a greater nation or “free thinkers” as some would proudly boast, but instead eroded the blood-bought foundation of America the Free and the Home of the Brave.
I would say the opposite has happened. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words “under God.” Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had “In God We Trust” printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word “God” inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.
In the Supreme Court’s 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that “this is a Christian nation.” Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.”
I would continue but really all you do for the rest of your long post is preach hate and intolerance.
You have been warned and so your blood is NOT on my hands.
Good, I’ve been trying to find a way to damn myself so I wouldn’t have to deal with these stupid “warnings” anymore.
Cin,
Great answers, and I think mac is off on some of his analysis, but as I pointed out previously, I don't think that the language of the Treaty of Tripoli means what you think it does in it's original context, nor in the context of all of our other relevant founding documents and Supreme Court decisions (though your answer to Judge Brewer's statement is hard to refute ;)
But in the long and detailed discussion above we've already covered a lot of this ground. I think I've settled on the "middle" position that
– many of the founders were biblical Christians, but not all
– most of the founders, even if they were personally Christian, were functional deists when it came to governing
– they relied on biblical and enlightenment thought to form the government, but more on biblical than most modern secularists and historians are willing to admit
– they believed in a sort of separation between church and state, but not the radical extreme most modern secularists believe in today, nor the theocracy that some far rightists want either
Ugh! The post above was mine.
I hope that my apology is accepted and I may be allowed to continue posting comments, because I find such didactic discussions coincidentally amusing and interesting.
LOL! No apology necessary, fire away, grizzly! As you see, I get much worse offenses here than overzealous posts that agree with me! Have fun, spit it all out there, let's see what we've got that works and that which is questionable, that's the whole idea.
Make up your mind, am I damned or blessed? :)
Cin, I agree with you that this passive/aggressive approach seems more crazy than impressive. He is making an obtuse reference to a scripture that Jesus used when telling the Pharisees that because they wanted to kill him, they were not children of God, but of Satan. I don't think that applies here.
However, despite Barton's credibility, I think his arguments show merit and should be taken seriously. Of course, his quotes should be validated.
Regarding whether or not Christians understand evolution, I understand your argument, but I think it's a bit of a red herring. What I mean is a few things:
First, I think that there is the usual misunderstanding between us what we are talking about when we talk "evolution." Creationists who reject evolution aren't rejecting genetic change or drift or speciation or natural selection, just macroevolution.
Second, evolutionists often retreat to the more precise but esoteric definitions of evolution in order to bamboozle, or trump their critics' criticisms of the more superficial evaluations of evolutionary theory. Mac's statement about "man evolving from monkey" may have been technically lacking, but it is in essence correct. Evolution is no more feasible if we came from a common ancestor rather than a monkey, if that is what you mean by stating that mac doesn't get evolution.
Mac's statement about "man evolving from monkey" may have been technically lacking, but it is in essence correct. Evolution is no more feasible if we came from a common ancestor rather than a monkey, if that is what you mean by stating that mac doesn't get evolution.
That's exactly what I mean Seeker. It's this sort of interpretation that leads to, "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Mac does not need to be an evolutionist but if he is going to talk about it, at least don't misrepresent it.
Seeker,
U said…
[[LOL! No apology necessary… Have fun, spit it all [out there…that’s the whole idea.]]
As far as posting,then, I’ll take that as a YES! lol
Cineaste said…
Make up your mind, am I damned or blessed? :)
Owing to the fact that you said (quoted)[[“Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”, ]]
and, [[Not at all. This is horrendous circular reasoning. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. I hope this is not the “reason” you give for why people should accept Jesus because you are blatantly begging the question,]]
it is painfully obvious to me that your dearth of logic is outstripped only by your spiritual stubbornness.
You can’t serve 2 masters Cineaste. You have all but admitted Satan, or self, if you prefer, is your only true god, and you have only contempt for the word of God, yet seem flummoxed by the fact that I would ask God to bless you.
Simple, I serve/obey God, and TRUTH trumps all else.
You fail again to understand how YOUR actions are what have condemned you, NOT me, and that YOU alone are responsible for them, and if you truly believe you are an “atheist” than that leaves Satan out as a scapegoat as well, doesn’t it? How could an EVIL entity (i.e. Satan) exist in your view if a GOOD GOD does NOT exist?
Yours must be a morally neutral vacuum of some sort devoid of any good or evil that stems from a GOOD GOD or an EVIL entity; such as: Satan or the devil.
Who do YOU blame for all the BAD things that happen? By the looks of your primitive psychometrics one would have to conclude, you guessed it, Christians. lol
Yours is the “circular reasoning” Cineaste. Something to the effect that Evolution exists because monkeys and man both walk upright (sort of) and so therefore man evolved from monkeys. TA DAH!
Simple logic, such as I used to point out any creation requires a creator, can concretely be corroborated by both a builder being required to build a building or a painter being required to paint a painting. Like, how do we know there was a builder? The building itself is the visible proof. Or, how do we know there was a painter? The painting is the tangible evidence. That’s logic 101, man, not “circular reasoning,” like macro-evolution exists because of species adaptations w/in its own kind (i.e. inaccurately termed micro-evolution).
Of course, you could argue against creation and the inerrancy, infallibility, and divine inspiration of the bible simply by believing instead that by throwing all the scrabble game letters in the air odds are that an intact unabridged dictionary will magically manifest itself instead once gravity returns the letters to ground zero. Those are about the same odds you have of proving evolution to be a scientific fact over intelligent design.
Why do you think Kansas public education experts are up in arms that “equal time” between intelligent design and evolution be given in the tax-funded public schools? What are the evolutionists afraid of? It’s obvious that evolution advocates are afraid that given a level playing field again (i.e. circa Scopes trial), more and more young “free thinkers” would eventually figure it out for themselves. Touche!
Since evolution is more philosophical than scientific one could easily argue that it is actually “unconstitutional” to either fund with federal or state tax dollars ONLY ONE origins view since that would constitute an establishment of a religion by the govt; namely: atheism/secular humanism. What hypocrites!
Evolutionists’ stance about how scientifically superior their theory is to creation or intelligent design is a mere smokescreen to further their unconstitutional tax-payer funded brainwashing (tantamount to child abuse) of generation after generation of unsuspecting captive audiences trusting their biology teachers are “experts” and can be trusted with what they teach and the texts support their ungodly/atheistic premise.
Nothing could be further from the TRUTH!
The biology text you arrogantly assert I should resort to actually has been culpable of erroneously pandering to and promoting lies such as the exposed embryonic hoax by Haeckel, Peppered Moths Myth, and Piltdown Man fraud exposed in 1953 to name just a few.
Seeker said…
[[Cin, I agree with you that this passive/aggressive approach seems more crazy than impressive. He is making an obtuse reference to a scripture that Jesus used when telling the Pharisees that because they wanted to kill him, they were not children of God, but of Satan. I don’t think that applies here.]]
My turn again…
Sorry gent’s, but schizophrenia or passive/aggressive disorders are out of the question, unless, of course, you’re admitting projecting as a defense mechanism to buy time for your next rebuttal?
Jesus said in Luke 9:50, “…he that is not against us is for us.”
Hardly an “obtuse reference” since as I stated earlier, TRUTH, which the natural man is incapable of fathoming (see previous post) in SPIRITUAL matters (including ontological such as origin of mankind) mainly because he’s too proud to humble himself and thus perpetuates his vain attempt to apprehend truth via knowledge alone, is two-sided.
On the one hand/side, there’s the TRUTH that those who deny or reject Christ only have one other option available for who their spiritual father is, and it’s not Yahweh!
Then, on the other hand/side, this same Son of God teaches believers in Christ, like myself, to [[…Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;]] Matt 5:44
Further, as I stated earlier, TRUTH is two-sided, so although many ignorantly assert the bible is rife with contradictions (excuse for poor scholarship), contextual criticism via scholarly hermeneutics aptly affirms the bible’s trustworthiness as the Word of God, and so although it appears to you 2 that blessing and cursing are coming from me, the TRUTH is that Cineaste has condemned (cursed) himself for rejecting CHRIST in spite of my obeying God’s command to “bless” those who curse you and pray for those who despitefully use you.
Jhn 12:48 [[He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.]]
John 3:18 [[He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.]]
John 3:19 [[And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.]]
Consequently, Seeker, Jhn 8:44 [[Ye are of [your] father the devil]] [[applies here.]]
Seeker said…
[[First, I think that there is the usual misunderstanding between us what we are talking about when we talk “evolution.” Creationists who reject evolution aren’t rejecting genetic change or drift or speciation or natural selection, just macroevolution.
[[Second, evolutionists often retreat to the more precise but esoteric definitions of evolution…]]
My turn…
[[Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk “The New Creationism.” Ruse had specifically been asked to “refute Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial.” (Intervarsity Press, 1991.) Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on “philosophical assumptions” as on scientific evidence.]]
[[…Indeed, this renowned philosopher of science had stunned his listeners at the 1993 annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.]]
[[…”macro-evolution”, is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a “research issue”. Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible.]]
[[…Many …believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact’ and, therefore, it must be accepted… In recent years, a great many people…having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists.]]
— Henry Morris, former evolutionist.
So much for the pseudoscience of evolution!
Cineaste added…
[[David Barton does not sound credible to me. He’s biased, fabricates quotes, and is academically deficient in the field he is supposedly an expert in, American History. He is not worth responding to.]]
Oh, if I only had a $1.00 for every time a so-called “expert” expounded ex-cathedra about any subject! Although some would criticize his scholarship, the FACTS speak for themselves, whether or not he corroborates them or someone else decries/denies them.
Cineaste persists…
[[Regarding point #4 evolution, …”that is if we can agree.” We don’t agree. You have bungled Evolution’s definition. This is common among creationists I have spoken with for they are not taught by Genesis how evolution actually works. If you want a more robust explanation I suggest read a basic biology textbook. You are correct that it’s a separate debate.]]
’nuff said already
Cineaste quips…
[[Point #5. Cineaste, your spiritual father, Satan…
contrast this with…
May God bless you Cineaste…
Make up your mind, am I damned or blessed? :)]]
MAC gives thanks [[For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.]] II Timothy 1:7
Cineaste retorts…
[[Point #6. You quote a lot of scripture without grasping that I don’t believe in the Bible. It’s tantamount to a Muslim fundamentalist quoting the Koran to you. You would automatically dismiss Muslim quotes. I simply dismiss quotes from both books. If you want to connect with an a non believer about your message, about Christianity, you will need to jettison the religion first and speak to him, not on a faith level which he lacks, but on a rational and logical level. My heart follows my mind, not the other way around.]]
Actually, I attempt to use BOTH the “natural” and “spiritual/scriptural” means to convey or communicate with you the TRUTH, but ultimately the onus is with you, not me, to either accept or reject the TRUTH as Seeker has and I have and all others must, too.
I only need to be obedient to do what God expects of me, and nothing else. He blesses those who obey Him.
Peter said, [[We ought to obey God rather than men.]]
Acts 5:29
[[And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.]] Acts 5:32
Also, [[So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.]] Romans 10:17
My opinion matters not and neither frankly does yours.
All that matters, Cineaste, is what God says, since we all will give an account one day after we die unto Jesus Christ, the righteous judge.
Isaiah 55:11 puts it this way, [[So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.]]
God’s holy word is not man-made religion, but [[… the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.]]
Kinda leaves little to chance now doesn’t it?
Don’t fool yourself any longer, Cineaste. You’ve heard of foxhole conversions in time of war just like everyone else. When all is said and done, if unbelieving man is suddenly faced with his mortality, the usual and customary plea heard goes something like this, “Oh God, please help me! I’ll do whatever you say, just don’t let me die!” You get the picture!
The spirit of God convicts us of 3 things; namely: righteousness, sin, and judgment. John 16:8
I’m not about convincing or convicting, but obeying.
Cineaste persists…
[[#8. …my argument doesn’t hinge upon one man’s actions named Thomas Jefferson, but the actions of the God/man, Jesus Christ!
Do you think Jesus wrote the Declaration of Independence or Jefferson? Again, by saying your argument is based upon Jesus, essentially you’re saying your position is, “It is true because… it is true.” You’re guilty of a tautology which won’t fly in any reasonable debate.]]
Again, YOU don’t get it! Not that I thought you would this time, but then Christians do believe in HOPE as well as faith and love, and since I’ve been commanded to LOVE you, and I have faith today, there’s hope for tomorrow.
My point originally was I’m about “spiritual” matters most, and could care less if we agreed on what Jefferson or any other mere mortal said. Ultimate “sovereignty” or government over mankind rests with God, and true FREEDOM is derived from knowing the TRUTH, which, if spiritual, requires being “born again.”
Cineaste contends…
#9. it takes a Creator for there to exist the created. Don’t you agree?
[[Not at all. This is horrendous circular reasoning. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. I hope this is not the “reason” you give for why people should accept Jesus because you are blatantly begging the question.]]
Mac reminds reader of “builder/building” & “painter/painting” natural examples to illustrate the spiritual point made earlier.
Cineaste confesses…
[[“Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” I would say that the “intellectually enlightened” people are not really shaking their collective fist at God at all because He is not there.]]
Wishful thinking, Cineaste, as HELL is not a permanent abode. Perhaps you should reread REVELATION and pay attention especially for the words, “LAKE OF FIRE.”
[[And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.]] Rev. 20:10
[[And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.]] Rev. 20:14
Oh, now here’s some good news. Not for atheists, though, but for believers in Christ. TRUTH is indeed liberating!
[[Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.]] Rev. 20:6
So much for reigning in hell!
I’ll take heaven any day!
Cineaste’s statistical stretch…
[[If you like stats, here is one for you…
Christians make up 75% of the United States Population
Christians make up 75% of the United States Prison Population
-Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997
Athiests make up 10% of the United States Population
Athiests only make up 0.2% of the United States Prison Population
-Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997]]
[[Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.]] Matt 7:21
[[Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?]] Matt 7:22
[[And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.]] Matt 7:23
Cineaste concludes…
[[To me, it may as well be Allah, or Zeus, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Mac, you are simply preaching to the choir, those who already believe, when you quote scripture. Can you understand? ]]
Believers don’t need preachers, but teachers. Unbelievers need preachers.
[[How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?]] Romans 10:14
[[And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!]] Romans 10:15
Since love [[Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.]] I Cor. 13:7
And since [[… we walk by faith, not by sight…]]
I shall keep [[Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ]] Titus 2:13