All this talk about Obama's religion misses the obvious conclusion

[tomwaits]

Maybe he just isn't a very religious person? Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!

[Denver]

It's actually a fairly common cycle for a person to drop their religion as they enter their age of reason (usually in the teens), then pick it up again once they marry and start a family, with the motive that they are doing it for the kids sake.

[Oliver]

All this talk about Obama's religion misses the obvious conclusion


Yes, "Religion sucks".

[fuelair]

Maybe he just isn't a very religious person? Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!

That's been my assumption from the beginning - politicians are forced to appear religious because of certain people's stupidity.:)

[Cain]

Both of his biological parents were atheists. A friend who has read his books "gets the sense" that he's secretly a non-believer. Either way I would not be surprised.

[Whiplash]

That's been my assumption from the beginning - politicians are forced to appear religious because of certain people's stupidity.:)

Assuming they are Democrats of course. If they are Republicans, they obviously are complete die hard believers who will burn/ban books and insist on creationism being taught. After all, that was all stated about Palin in less than 24 hours of her being announced, before anyone could do any reasonably deep and thorough investigation of the facts.

[gtc]

Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!

Didn't he attend the church more regularly than that?

[Jeff Corey]

This might be factual.http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971

[mhaze]

OBAMA:Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience. That’s something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they’re preaching, right?

GGG:Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?
OBAMA:Yeah. Yes. I think some of the thigns I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

GG Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA:Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/06/barack-obama-the-2004-god-factor-interview-transcript/ (http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/06/barack-obama-the-2004-god-factor-interview-transcript)

[XBoxWarrior]

The sad thing is...that politicians in the US have to play the religious card.

Sure, everyone of rational thought says, "there is a separation". But that never enters into the campaign reality.

I will long be dead before a politician can proudly say, "that stuff is NONSENSE".

[Cleon]

Assuming they are Democrats of course. If they are Republicans, they obviously are complete die hard believers who will burn/ban books and insist on creationism being taught.

Well, there's a difference that you're ignoring.

Obama, whether he actually is as religious as he says or is just "playing the game," has been very clear about the fact that religion should not play a role in government.

McCain, whether he's "playing the game" or not, is now saying stupid and false things like "the Constitution clearly established the United States as a Christian nation."

Conservative politicians are known for wanting religion pushed into politics, particularly schools. When self-proclaimed conservatives start going on about God and Jesus, it's not a huge jump to conclude they're on board with the "creationism is science and public schools should have sanctioned prayer" wing of the conservative movement. (I say conservative here, and not Republican, because it's a dirty little secret that there are a fair number of Democrats--mostly on the local and state levels--who are also of this mindset.)


It might make you feel better to pretend there's a double standard at work here, but there really isn't. It's not about the personal religious beliefs of the politician; it's about whether that politician thinks those beliefs should have the force of law behind them.

[gtc]

This might be factual.http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971

Thanks for that.

It seems to me to be wishful thinking to believe that Obama isn't religious. Or to think that his Presidency wouldn't be influenced by his religion:


"what was intellectual and what was emotional joined, and the belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, that through him we could achieve eternal life—but also that, through good works we could find order and meaning here on Earth and transcend our limits and our flaws and our foibles—I found that powerful."


He says he prays every day, typically for "forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my family, and that I'm carrying out God's will, not in a grandiose way, but simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would want."

[gtc]

Obama, whether he actually is as religious as he says or is just "playing the game," has been very clear about the fact that religion should not play a role in government.

Can you provide some references for that statement?

McCain, whether he's "playing the game" or not, is now saying stupid and false things like "the Constitution clearly established the United States as a Christian nation."

Well, the following quote (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/09/mccain-us-founded-as-a-christi.html) is more than a year old but I think this is what you are talking about:


Q. A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

A. I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.


To say that the United States was founded on Christian principles seems neither false nor stupid.

[geni]

Public relgious image doesn't mean much. It seems likely that blair was a lot more relgious than he let on during him PM years.

[ProbeX]

Assuming they are Democrats of course. If they are Republicans, they obviously are complete die hard believers who will burn/ban books and insist on creationism being taught. After all, that was all stated about Palin in less than 24 hours of her being announced, before anyone could do any reasonably deep and thorough investigation of the facts.

Whoah, did you just put Palin, reasonably deep and facts in the same sentence?

Interesting.

[Cleon]

Can you provide some references for that statement?


Here, take it from people unsympathetic to his position (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx):

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

To me, that's a fairly clear statement that governmental policy should be decided on secular principles that apply to people of all religions and no religion. (How many Republican politicians would even mention unbelievers?)

YMMV, but I stand by my statement.


Well, the following quote (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/09/mccain-us-founded-as-a-christi.html) is more than a year old but I think this is what you are talking about:



To say that the United States was founded on Christian principles seems neither false nor stupid.Arguable, but saying that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation" is both false and stupid, broad sense or no.

False, because the Constitution did no such thing.

Stupid, because I would damn well expect a candidate for the President of the United States to have read the frakking Constitution!

If you want to harp on the "broad sense" bit (I believe mentalists call that an "out"), I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution. Or, for that matter, a Jewish principle, a Muslim principle, or a Scientologist principle. It is a secular document, through and through.

[BenBurch]

Assuming they are Democrats of course. If they are Republicans, they obviously are complete die hard believers who will burn/ban books and insist on creationism being taught. After all, that was all stated about Palin in less than 24 hours of her being announced, before anyone could do any reasonably deep and thorough investigation of the facts.

Obviously. Or they would be Democrats.

[gtc]

If you want to harp on the "broad sense" bit (I believe mentalists call that an "out"), I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution. Or, for that matter, a Jewish principle, a Muslim principle, or a Scientologist principle. It is a secular document, through and through.

Any chance that you will a) read the article I linked to and b) stop trying to poison the well and c) stop misrepresenting what he said?

If you can't do those, can you try to be at least a little bit more subtle about it?

[MattusMaximus]

The sad thing is...that politicians in the US have to play the religious card.

Sure, everyone of rational thought says, "there is a separation". But that never enters into the campaign reality.

I will long be dead before a politician can proudly say, "that stuff is NONSENSE".


Pete Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark) - the first U.S. politician in the Congress to openly declare his atheism.

Progress is being made, there is hope. :)

[MattusMaximus]

Obviously. Or they would be Democrats.


I have to agree with Whip on this one. Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're secular in their governance.

We just went through an idiotic ordeal in Illinois whereby the Democratic legislature passed a law requiring a "moment of silence" each day in the public schools (read: state-sponsored prayer). The only person in the state senate who voted against the bill was a Republican, and the Democratic governor vetoed the bill, whereupon the Democratic legislature overturned his veto. Eventually, after much public outcry (apparently the public was better educated on church-state separation than the legislature :rolleyes:), many Democrats & Republicans came together to revise (read: kill) the previous bill - the revision was never brought up for a vote.

In the end the courts, as usual, stepped in and put an end to the nonsense. So much for pigeonholing by party, and thank goodness for the judiciary!

[BenBurch]

I have to agree with Whip on this one. Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean they're secular in their governance. ...

I know. I was just yanking his chain.

[Cleon]

Any chance that you will a) read the article I linked to

Read it. Unimpressed.


and b) stop trying to poison the wellI'm not.


and c) stop misrepresenting what he said?Blatant lie on your part.

His words were, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." There's no way for me to "misrepresent" that statement. It is simply factually untrue.

You can talk about some vague "Christian principles" being in the foundation of the United States, if you like.

But you won't find them in the Constitution. At all.


If you can't do those, can you try to be at least a little bit more subtle about it?So, the only way to justify what he said is to assume that he meant something different than the words that came out of his mouth. OK.

[MattusMaximus]

This document puts the final nail in the coffin of those making the lame "the U.S.A. was founded as a Christian nation" b.s. (it still holds the weight of law, btw):

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (c. 1797) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11)

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but I'm sure some will try to spin it to mean something else. Watch them spin and achieve liftoff :faint:

[Undesired Walrus]

Maybe he just isn't a very religious person? Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!

According to Dreams, He went quite some time before he met his wife. However, the same book seems to imply he was an Atheist before going to Wright's church.

[gtc]

Read it. Unimpressed.

Let me know when you want to explain why you are unimpressed. Just saying that doesn't indicate anything.

I'm not.

Yes you are. You have taken a line out of context. I have suggested that the context shows the meaning that he intended that sentence to have. Rather than addressing that context you have suggested that mentioning it is 'harping' and you have said that McCain explaining his meaning is like a mentalist providing an 'out'. You have sought to spuriously portray the explanation in a negative light without actually addressing it. If there is a better phrase for what you are doing than poisoning the well then please provide it.


Blatant lie on your part.

No.

You are misrepresenting him because your silly little challenge was:

I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution.

When McCain said

But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

See the difference. That is why you are misrepresenting McCain. A decent person would apologise and retract your allegation that I was lying. I doubt you will however.

His words were, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." There's no way for me to "misrepresent" that statement. It is simply factually untrue.

See above. And you are still taking that quote out of context.

You can talk about some vague "Christian principles" being in the foundation of the United States, if you like.

But you won't find them in the Constitution. At all.

That is nice. But once again you are taking the words out of context.

So, the only way to justify what he said is to assume that he meant something different than the words that came out of his mouth. OK.

No. I am assuming that he meant what he said in its entirety. You have taken a sentence out of context and shorn it of the meaning that he gave it. The fact that you are so desperate and obvious in your attempts to avoid looking at the context tells me that you know this.

[Cleon]

Let me know when you want to explain why you are unimpressed. Just saying that doesn't indicate anything.

The "article" consisted of little more than a blog posting that essentially says, "I agree with that."

Not much to expound on there.


Yes you are. You have taken a line out of context. I have suggested that the context shows the meaning that he intended that sentence to have. Rather than addressing that context you have suggested that mentioning it is 'harping' and you have said that McCain explaining his meaning is like a mentalist providing an 'out'. You have sought to spuriously portray the explanation in a negative light without actually addressing it. If there is a better phrase for what you are doing than poisoning the well then please provide it.
No.

Sorry, that just doesn't work. His statement was incorrect--context or no.



No.

You are misrepresenting himThat's a lie. Stop that, will you?



See the difference. That is why you are misrepresenting McCain. A decent person would apologise and retract your allegation that I was lying. I doubt you will however.Because you are lying.

You seem to think that harping (there's that word again! nooo!) on another line in McCain's statement excuses the falsehood in the first.

It doesn't.


That is nice. But once again you are taking the words out of context.No, the context simply doesn't make the statement any less incorrect, as you seem to think it does.

"The Constitution clearly established the United States as a Christian nation."

That statement is simply false. Whether in a "broad sense" of vague "Christian principles this nation was founded on" or otherwise, it is still false.

[gtc]

I have pointed out that your challenge misrepresented McCain and you completely ignored what I wrote.

I knew you lacked the decency to retract your claim that I was lying. I didn't think that you were so dishonourable as to repeat the claim.

I would call you a liar but I have no idea if you are deliberately stating the untruth or not.

[Cleon]

I have pointed out that your challenge misrepresented McCain and you completely ignored what I wrote.

I knew you lacked the decency to retract your claim that I was lying. I didn't think that you were so dishonourable as to repeat the claim.

I would call you a liar but I have no idea if you are deliberately stating the untruth or not.



I have pointed out that your claim lacks substance, that I have not misrepresented McCain, and that his words speak for themselves.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my problem, but yours.

The fact that you insist on making the issue about me is also your problem, not mine.

[dudalb]

Public relgious image doesn't mean much. It seems likely that blair was a lot more relgious than he let on during him PM years.

I got a feeling that was because of the Catholic issue. If he had been an Anglican no one would have cared.
I would hate to think that "Secularists" are becoming as intolerent as "Beleivers", but, sadly, there is evidence for that.

[gtc]

I have pointed out that your claim lacks substance, that I have not misrepresented McCain, and that his words speak for themselves.


You have lied repeatedly about this. Do you admit that McCain wrote:

But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

While you wrote:

I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution.

That is why you misrepresented him.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my problem, but yours.

Sorry mate you are the one with the problem around here. You know that, when placed in its context, McCain's statement does not carry the meaning that you want to give it. That is why you described the context as an 'out' - something which mentalists use to change the meaning of their statements. In this context it was obviously an explanation - something which people use to explain the meaning of their sentences. You even attempted to preemptively shut down disscusion of the context by suggesting that mentioning the context would be 'harping'; another indication that you realise that the context changes the meaning.

The fact that you insist on making the issue about me is also your problem, not mine.

You insisted on making the issue about me when you called me a liar. When shown that I was not lying you repeated your claim. You are the one who personalised the issue and the fact that you are now claiming otherwise just shows the sort of person you are.

At the end of the day, any suggestion that Obama won't be influenced by his religious views would be as silly as suggesting that McCain would somehow establish a theocracy.

[Cleon]

You have lied repeatedly about this.

Bull.


Do you admit that McCain wrote:


But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
Of course. I've never denied it. At all.


While you wrote:


I challenge you to find a single Christian principle embodied in the Constitution. That is why you misrepresented him.
WTF?

First, that statement was aimed at you, at your interpretation of McCain's comments. Not at McCain.

Second, do you admit that McCain also said, "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation?"

The context does not mitigate that statement in any way. That's not me misrepresenting him. That's McCain saying something that's simply factually untrue.

[gtc]

WTF?


Cute. Rather than admitting you shouldn't have called me a liar, you pretend that this is the first time you have seen this.

First, that statement was aimed at you, at your interpretation of McCain's comments. Not at McCain.

Now this is just nonsense. Where did I say that McCain believes that the constitution embodied Christian principles?

I am done discussing this issue with you. You obviously have no interest in discussing the OP and you are still trying to divorce the statement from its context because you know that the context shows that the meaning that you wish to give the sentence is false. Your assertions otherwise ring hollow.

[daredelvis]

...the conclusion that being a Muslim disqualifies one for national office in the USA? It is sad how that not only is that a given for so many people, but how uncontroversial that view appears to be.

Daredelvis

[Cleon]

I am done discussing this issue with you. You obviously have no interest in discussing the OP and you are still trying to divorce the statement from its context because you know that the context shows that the meaning that you wish to give the sentence is false. Your assertions otherwise ring hollow.

There you go lying again.

"The Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."

The context of the statement in no way mitigates that statement. The statement is simply false. Wrong. Incorrect. Untrue. Devoid of fact.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

[Nogbad]

The sad thing is...that politicians in the US have to play the religious card.

Sure, everyone of rational thought says, "there is a separation". But that never enters into the campaign reality.

I will long be dead before a politician can proudly say, "that stuff is NONSENSE".

Perhaps a Father Dougal moment is needed

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BDNvLiKcZN0&feature=related

[MarkCorrigan]

There you go lying again.

"The Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."

The context of the statement in no way mitigates that statement. The statement is simply false. Wrong. Incorrect. Untrue. Devoid of fact.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

LA LA LA I'm not listening!

Ye gods this is insane. McCain messed up, no interpretation of his words is any different to what Cleon is stating he said. He even explicitly mentioned the constitution himself and you are just ignoring it and claiming context, gtc?

Christ. I thought you were better than that.

[gtc]

There you go lying again.

You can attack me all you want, but it won't change that one little bit.

Complaining that you are being 'attacked' is nonsense when you have repeatedly accused me of lying and repeatedly ignored the evidence I have provided to show you that you were misrepresenting him.

I'm not "giving" it any meaning. Words mean things, and what these words mean is something that just isn't so.

Nonsense. Context obviously matters. The complaints about the McCain camp portrayal of Obama's support for sex-education for young children proves this. The context shows that while Obama does support 'sex-ed' for young children; what he supports is age appropriate education.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Considering many of the founders were Deist's... :|

[leftysergeant]

We are getting nowhere here. Would one of you from the right/Republican camp care to post the supposed "Christian" elements in our founding documents and the Constitution?

Until then, just own that McCain has addressed us out the back of his trousers again.

[Cleon]

Complaining that you are being 'attacked' is nonsense when you have repeatedly accused me of lying and repeatedly ignored the evidence I have provided to show you that you were misrepresenting him.

You have presented no such evidence. You've merely repeated the assertion.

Assertion != evidence.
Assertion != argument.
Assertion = assertion.


Nonsense. Context obviously matters.

Who's misrepresenting whom, now? I never said context doesn't matter. Of course context matters.

But in this case, the context does not affect the accuracy--more like, the inaccuracy--of his statement that "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation." His later sentence about vague "Christian principles" as a foundation of the nation does not, in any way, mitigate what he said about the Constitution--which remains, as always, factually inaccurate.

[gtc]

Assertion != evidence.
Assertion != argument.
Assertion = assertion.

Indeed assertion does not equal evidence and neither do lies.

When you lie by suggesting that I haven't provided the evidence to show that you misrepresented McCain, when I have provided it twice now, all you prove is that you are a liar.

Now, do you wish to actually discuss the topic of religion in the presidential campaign, or would you rather just keep lying? It is up to you.

If, by some miracle, you do decide to stop lying perhaps you might consider that both men are up front about their religion and the influence it has had on their lives, including Obama's obvious passion for social justice. Unless they are lying about this influence, their religious views will influence the policies they intend to pursue. So why not look at the actual policies they are espousing?

[Cleon]

:words:


Yes, yes, I'm a horrible, horrible person.

Meanwhile, McCain's claim that "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation" remains stupid and false.

[varwoche]

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles. This doesn't make sense. Where in the constitution is this broader sense of Christianity laid out? I don't see it. The statue of liberty isn't part of the constitution.

I interpret this as pandering. The first sentence plays to the choir, and then the rest serves to airbrush the BS.

[gtc]

Yes, yes, I'm a horrible, horrible person.

No. Your politics are silly and you lie occassionally to try to prove your points but you are not a horrible person.

Meanwhile, McCain's claim that "the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation" remains stupid and false.

At the end of the day you are still completely ignoring the rest of what he said. He clearly said the words 'I say this in the broadest sense' and you have clearly chosen to interpret his words in the narrowest sense to try to prove your claim.

[gtc]

This doesn't make sense. Where in the constitution is this broader sense of Christianity laid out? I don't see it. The statue of liberty isn't part of the constitution.

I interpret this as pandering. The first sentence plays to the choir, and then the rest serves to airbrush the BS.

Yes he was pandering and the first sentence was playing to the choir. However, I don't see the rest of it as 'airbrushing the BS' so much as explaining what he meant.

I think it is pretty clear that what he was saying is that America was founded by people with Christian views (not to deny that non-Christians also had influence) and that their religious views have influenced the direction America took. One such example would be the principle of freedom of religion. I doubt freedom of religion would have been allowed in the US quite so early if America had been unified by Catholics or the British. Following one's own conscience when it comes to religion was important to many of the reformed Christians but the Anglican and Cahtolic leaders of the time did not see the need for seperation. I could provide examples from Ireland or Australia if you like.

[RandFan]

McCain, whether he's "playing the game" or not, is now saying stupid and false things like "the Constitution clearly established the United States as a Christian nation."Which could be an example of playing the game. One needs to play the game on the right more than the left. I honestly don't know and I worry about it. I think that Obama is more likely to move us in a secular direction than McCain. That said it seems fairly clear to me that McCain isn't really all that religious, rhetoric not withstanding.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe he just isn't a very religious person? Hell, his wife probably dragged him to Rev. Wright's church on Christmas and Easter!Boy is that a misogynistic statement.

[NorfolkAtheist]

Boy is that a misogynistic statement.

Sexist maybe, but misogynistic seems like a bit of a stretch. Maybe he just forgot the smiley.

[gtc]

Boy is that a misogynistic statement.

One partner dragging another to church isn't unheard of, so he could just be misguided.

[Cleon]

At the end of the day you are still completely ignoring the rest of what he said. He clearly said the words 'I say this in the broadest sense' and you have clearly chosen to interpret his words in the narrowest sense to try to prove your claim.

No, I'm not. The "broadest sense" simply doesn't change the meaning of those words, as much as you'd like to believe it does.

[Alferd_Packer]

Who cares?

[leftysergeant]

Would one of you who hold the position that there are Christian principles embodied in the nature of American politics please state which principles those would be?

If America is, indeed, Christian, the Democrats better live up to the most important Christian principles which are meant to guide government.

"In so much as you have done it for the least of these my brethern, you have done it for me.."

[varwoche]

Yes he was pandering and the first sentence was playing to the choir. However, I don't see the rest of it as 'airbrushing the BS' so much as explaining what he meant.

I think it is pretty clear that what he was saying is that America was founded by people with Christian views Clear? Even if you're right, in response to a question specifically about the consitution McCain replies by intermingling the statue of liberty as if it's part of the constitution.

Maybe he was airbrushing a pander. Maybe it was a gaffe. Maybe McCain really believes what he said about the constitution. Or maybe your generous interpretation is correct -- he ignored the question and answered with apple pie talking points. In any case, it sure as hell isn't clear.

I could provide examples from Ireland or Australia if you like. Thanks but I don't see this as even remotely pertinent.

[Iamme]

It's actually a fairly common cycle for a person to drop their religion as they enter their age of reason (usually in the teens), then pick it up again once they marry and start a family, with the motive that they are doing it for the kids sake.

Huh. I thought it was just MY family that thought like this. When I got in my early-mid teens is when I started wondering if a whale really swallowed Jonah and if someone was turned to salt.

Then my sisters, who got married, went back to church so the kids could get baptized(in case it's real...just in case). One sister joined some church to get married.

So others do this too? :biggrin:

[tomwaits]

Boy is that a misogynistic statement.

Maybe. It was really a joke based off of the behavior of my parents. But sorry if I offended.


As for whether American is a "Christian nation", the Declaration of Independence states "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."

This is not law, nor does it specify that it is a Christian creator, but the Christian intentions are pretty clear. Of course, establishing a state religion is completely unconstitutional, but the fact is that the founding fathers were christians (or at least pretended to be).

[Tony]

As for whether American is a "Christian nation", the Declaration of Independence states "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."

This is not law, nor does it specify that it is a Christian creator, but the Christian intentions are pretty clear. Of course, establishing a state religion is completely unconstitutional, but the fact is that the founding fathers were christians (or at least pretended to be).

How are the christian intentions clear? I dont recall a bible verse where god endows his creation with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Can you provide one please?

[tomwaits]

How are the christian intentions clear? I dont recall a bible verse where god endows his creation with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Can you provide one please?

It doesn't matter if the Bible specifically referred to such a thing. The founding fathers, according to this document, felt that God had endowed them with these rights. If you want to debate with them whether such rights are actually endowed by God, it would be pretty hard since they are dead.

[gtc]

Thanks but I don't see this as even remotely pertinent.

You don't? Have you heard of the establishment clause?

[gtc]

It doesn't matter if the Bible specifically referred to such a thing. The founding fathers, according to this document, felt that God had endowed them with these rights. If you want to debate with them whether such rights are actually endowed by God, it would be pretty hard since they are dead.

Exactly.

'the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,'

They clearly thought they were embodying Christian principles in the DOI.

I have no idea why this would be seen as so controversial.

[Gurdur]

... I have no idea why this would be seen as so controversial.

More like very vague deist sentiments meaning not much at all, rather than genuinely specific Christian ideas, but vague wording and vague intents of the time mean that it is all rather a non-issue, especially given the much later Tripoli declaration which did tackle the issue dead-on.

As to why Cleon has to get so uptight about it, dunno, but he should calm down. I don't think you're right, but you are not so terribly wrong either. Not that I care all that much, not my problem.

[Cleon]

As to why Cleon has to get so uptight about it, dunno, but he should calm down. I don't think you're right, but you are not so terribly wrong either. Not that I care all that much, not my problem.

It's probably my "lack of integrity" n' stuff.

That, and knowing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[varwoche]

You don't? Have you heard of the establishment clause? Nowhere in this text the US is established as a Christian nation: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[gtc]

That, and knowing the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Still having trouble with the rest of the quote, I see.

Nowhere in this text the US is established as a Christian nation:

I know. The establishment clause is the first bit you quoted:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


It is actually a clause opposed to establishment and from what I have read it was aimed at avoiding what happened when the Anglican church was established in Britain and her colonies.

[Cleon]

Still having trouble with the rest of the quote, I see.

Still suffering from the delusion that the rest of the quote somehow means the first isn't incorrect, I see.

[gtc]

Still suffering from the delusion that the rest of the quote somehow means the first isn't incorrect, I see.

My statement had nothing to do with whether the context shows the correct meaning of the first sentence of the quote. Don't be so quick to reach for the insults, it just makes you look silly when you get it wrong.

The discussion about the DOI relates to the last sentence of the quote:


But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.


The constitution isn't the only 'foundation' of the USA.

[varwoche]

I know. The establishment clause is the first bit you quoted:

It is actually a clause opposed to establishment and from what I have read it was aimed at avoiding what happened when the Anglican church was established in Britain and her colonies. You're losing me here. You brought up a bunch of stuff that wasn't pertinent to the discussion and I replied as such. You then countered with the establishment clause, which doesn't say diddly about the US as a Christian nation. I have no clue why we've taken this detour.

[gtc]

You brought up a bunch of stuff that wasn't pertinent to the discussion and I replied as such.

The bit you didn't think was relevant was talking about the establishment clause and why I think it was seen as important by the Christians amongst the founders of America.

[Cleon]

My statement had nothing to do with whether the context shows the correct meaning of the first sentence of the quote.

There is no "correct meaning of the first sentence." That is where you fail.


Don't be so quick to reach for the insults, it just makes you look silly when you get it wrong.

Pot, kettle.


The discussion about the DOI relates to the last sentence of the quote:



The constitution isn't the only 'foundation' of the USA.

But it is the one McCain mentioned. Unless Constitution really means "Declaration of Independence" in the "broadest sense." :rolleyes:

[Tony]

It doesn't matter if the Bible specifically referred to such a thing.

It actually does if you're going to claim the christian intentions are clear.

The founding fathers, according to this document, felt that God had endowed them with these rights.

Indeed. This doesn't mean, however, that they were drawing inspiration from the Bible or Christianity.

[Tony]

'the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,'

They clearly thought they were embodying Christian principles in the DOI.



Thats a non-sequitor. They clearly didn't think they were embodying chrisitan principles in the DOI, because no where in the Bible, nor in christian history, does anyone attribute the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the christian god.

[tomwaits]

It actually does if you're going to claim the christian intentions are clear.

So something can only be "christian" if you can point to a specific passage in the bible that endorses it? No True Scotsman? I don't think you understand the long history of Christianity or religion in general.



Indeed. This doesn't mean, however, that they were drawing inspiration from the Bible or Christianity.

They also speak of "Divine Providence" helping them in their quest for independence. When has this term been used for anything not related to Judeo-Christianity?

[tomwaits]

Interesting fun fact: Thomas Jefferson compiled his own version of the Bible in which the supernatural elements of the New Testament were removed, as he did not believe in miracles.

[Tony]

So something can only be "christian" if you can point to a specific passage in the bible that endorses it?

When talking about rights endowed by the creator (which would essentially amount to a doctrine), yes.

No True Scotsman?

No.

I don't think you understand the long history of Christianity or religion in general.

Whatever. The bottom line is that you can't find evidence to support your assertion.

They also speak of "Divine Providence" helping them in their quest for independence. When has this term been used for anything not related to Judeo-Christianity?

LOL Apparently it was used in relation to the independence of the US. Something having nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

[Tony]

Interesting fun fact: Thomas Jefferson compiled his own version of the Bible in which the supernatural elements of the New Testament were removed, as he did not believe in miracles.

I know. It was fundamentally anti-christian act, he didnt believe the religion. This is more evidence that Thomas Jefferson didn't draw inspiration from Christiani when writing the DOI. Why would he draw inspiration from a religion he thought was bogus?

[tomwaits]

When talking about rights endowed by the creator (which would essentially amount to a doctrine), yes.



No.



Whatever. The bottom line is that you can't find evidence to support your assertion.

I see. You are the ultimate authority on what is and isn't Christianity. Since they don't fulfill your definition of when something is Christian, that means it is not Christian. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity may be considered a "religion of the book", but there is far more to it for many people than what is written in the New Testament. Are you seriously denying that?


LOL Apparently it was used in relation to the independence of the US. Something having nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

"Divine Providence" is a purely Judeo-Christian term. The fact that you don't recognize this just shows your ignorance.

[tomwaits]

I know. It was fundamentally anti-christian act, he didnt believe the religion. This is more evidence that Thomas Jefferson didn't draw inspiration from Christiani when writing the DOI. Why would he draw inspiration from a religion he thought was bogus?

Jefferson's religious beliefs are much more complicated than "he didn't believe the religion". However, he wasn't the only founding father.

[Tony]

I see. You are the ultimate authority on what is and isn't Christianity.


Still no evidence?

Since they don't fulfill your definition of when something is Christian, that means it is not Christian.

No, it doesnt fit any objective definition of Christian. Don't think I havent noticed that you still haven't supported you assertions with evidence.

That is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No it isnt. I'm simply trying to keep you honest and from re-defining Christianity to fit your argument. It's not no true scotsman to say things that have no objective relation to Christianity have no relation to Christianity. Mohammad has nothing to do with Christianity, I suppose you think its a no-true scots fallacy to say that?

Christianity may be considered a "religion of the book", but there is far more to it for many people than what is written in the New Testament.

Like what?

"Divine Providence" is a purely Judeo-Christian term.

Evidence?

[Tony]

Jefferson's religious beliefs are much more complicated than "he didn't believe the religion".

So? Whats your point?

However, he wasn't the only founding father.

He wrote the declaration of independence though, so his believes are the most relevant in a discussion about the inspiration behind the DOI.

[SezMe]

They also speak of "Divine Providence" helping them in their quest for independence. When has this term been used for anything not related to Judeo-Christianity?
The best example I can think of is the Declaration of Independence, the first sentence of which is:

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

Notice "Laws of Nature", which is not a christian concept. More importantly, note "Nature's God" which is how a Deist speaks. A christian does not speak of nature's god, he speaks of the god of mankind.

The founders included many deists and the language of the DOJ and the Constitution contain deist language....including the phrase "divine providence".

[tomwaits]

Still no evidence?

I cited the evidence. You think they put in references to a Creator and Divine Providence just for kicks?

No, it doesnt fit any objective definition of Christian. Don't think I havent noticed that you still haven't supported you assertions with evidence.

There's an objective definition of Christianity? That's news to me. There have been tons of different factions of Christianity dating all the way back to the beginning. Which one is the "objective" one? Can we really make such a claim?


No it isnt. I'm simply trying to keep you honest and from re-defining Christianity to fit your argument. It's not no true scotsman to say things that have no objective relation to Christianity have no relation to Christianity. Mohammad has nothing to do with Christianity, I suppose you think its a no-true scots fallacy to say that?

I'm sorry, what? Like I said, there is pretty much no such thing as "objective Christianity". Are Paul's teachings "objective"? The gnostics, ebionites, and Marcionites would have disagreed with you. There have been vicious arguments for 2000 years as to what the "real" Christanity is. And yes, Mohammed has plenty to do with Christianity, as he cites Jesus as a previous prophet.


Like what?

You think all those Catholic practices are based off of Biblical passages? Maybe some of them are tradition?

Evidence?

Sigh.

[tomwaits]

The best example I can think of is the Declaration of Independence, the first sentence of which is:



Notice "Laws of Nature", which is not a christian concept. More importantly, note "Nature's God" which is how a Deist speaks. A christian does not speak of nature's god, he speaks of the god of mankind.

The founders included many deists and the language of the DOJ and the Constitution contain deist language....including the phrase "divine providence".

It is to my understanding that Deism is the belief that the God does not participate in the workings of the universe. Why would they include Divine Providence then?

[Tony]

I cited the evidence. You think they put in references to a Creator and Divine Providence just for kicks?


You havent provided evidence that phrase is used exclusively in christiandom. In fact, I've shown the exact opposite.

There's an objective definition of Christianity?

Yes

There have been tons of different factions of Christianity dating all the way back to the beginning. Which one is the "objective" one?

Faction and definition are not the same thing.

I'm sorry, what? Like I said, there is pretty much no such thing as "objective Christianity". Are Paul's teachings "objective"? The gnostics, ebionites, and Marcionites would have disagreed with you.

So you can read minds too.

There have been vicious arguments for 2000 years as to what the "real" Christanity is.

I never said "real", I said objective.

And yes, Mohammed has plenty to do with Christianity.

Ok, please show where Mohammed was referenced in the Bible. Having "plenty" to do with Chistianity, he should practically be Jesus' best friend.

You think all those Catholic practices are based off of Biblical passages?

You mean those catholic practices that were stolen from paganism? No, those have nothing to do with Christianity as they have no support in the canonical christian texts.

Maybe some of them are tradition?

So, if people start worshiping Satan and singing Marylin Manson songs in church under the aegis of Christianity today, those practices magically become christian with the passage of enough time? This is an argument ad populum.

If anything, we're highlighting the absurdity of religious belief in this discussion and why its inappropriate to say the DOI or the Constitution was inspired by Christianity. As has been shown, any half-wit can claim something is related to Christianity for any reason.

Sigh.

So, no evidence then?

[Skeptic Ginger]

One partner dragging another to church isn't unheard of, so he could just be misguided.That wasn't the issue, it was the assumption of who was responsible for the dragging.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe. It was really a joke based off of the behavior of my parents. But sorry if I offended.Apology accepted.



As for whether American is a "Christian nation", the Declaration of Independence states "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."

This is not law, nor does it specify that it is a Christian creator, but the Christian intentions are pretty clear. Of course, establishing a state religion is completely unconstitutional, but the fact is that the founding fathers were christians (or at least pretended to be).(emphasis mine)

No, they were not all Christians. You are just regurgitating the right-wing Evangelical talking points. You need to do your own homework. From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States), "Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]" Wiki continuesJefferson in particular was hostile toward many aspects of contemporary Christianity, writing in a March 13, 1789 letter to Francis Hopkinson "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

In correspondence with John Adams, Jefferson wrote that "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."[citation needed] In yet another letter, to José Correia da Serra, dated April 11, 1820, Jefferson wrote that: "Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."[12]

[DavidJames]

The simplest comeback I've found to the notion of the U.S. being a Christian nation is to point out that if the founders really wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, all they had to do was put something, anything, in the constitution about it. They didn't. End of story.

[varwoche]

The simplest comeback I've found to the notion of the U.S. being a Christian nation is to point out that if the founders really wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, all they had to do was put something, anything, in the constitution about it. They didn't. End of story. Indeed. Notice how the discussion focuses not on the constitution -- the document that actually matters and the document McCain was questioned about -- but on the DOI and the frikkin statue of liberty of all things. (I blame France. ;))

[RandFan]

Indeed. Notice how the discussion focuses not on the constitution -- the document that actually matters and the document McCain was questioned about -- but on the DOI and the frikkin statue of liberty of all things. (I blame France. ;))Would you like some freedom fries?

[gtc]

Thats a non-sequitor. They clearly didn't think they were embodying chrisitan principles in the DOI, because no where in the Bible, nor in christian history, does anyone attribute the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the christian god.

That is a massive claim. Are you sure you want to be that emphatic about it?

It is also beside the point. If a Christian is attributing something to God, then it is clear that it is the Christian God they are talking about.

[leftysergeant]

Well, fee-simple ownership of farm land is prohibited in the Bible, but it is considered sacred to the right wing. Bit of a conflict, don't you think?

[gtc]

Ok, please show where Mohammed was referenced in the Bible.

It has been pointed out, but the Bible is only one of the sources of Christian beliefs. Evangelical Christians would argue that it is the penultimate source (next to God of course), but they aren't the only Christians.

Having "plenty" to do with Chistianity, he should practically be Jesus' best friend.

You can plenty to do with Christianity without being Jesus' best friend. It seems doubtful that Paul met Jesus but he practically invented Christianity. Furthermore, neither Luther or Augustine knew Jesus.

You mean those catholic practices that were stolen from paganism? No, those have nothing to do with Christianity as they have no support in the canonical christian texts.

That might be the case in your interpretation of the religion, but it is certainly not true for most Catholics.

[gtc]

Well, fee-simple ownership of farm land is prohibited in the Bible, but it is considered sacred to the right wing. Bit of a conflict, don't you think?

I am not sure that you can expect internal consistency from a faith which believes that God is both one and three and that Jesus is both God and the Son of God.

[Tony]

It has been pointed out, but the Bible is only one of the sources of Christian beliefs. Evangelical Christians would argue that it is the penultimate source (next to God of course), but they aren't the only Christians.


I take this as a concession that you have no evidence.

You can plenty to do with Christianity without being Jesus' best friend.

That statement was tongue in cheek.

It seems doubtful that Paul met Jesus but he practically invented Christianity. Furthermore, neither Luther or Augustine knew Jesus.

This doesn't support the claim that Mohammed had anything to do with christianity.

That might be the case in your interpretation of the religion, but it is certainly not true for most Catholics.

Indeed. If the question of something having any relation to Christianity hinges merely on people's opinions and not facts, its pointless to argue that the DOI has inspiration from Christianity. You're conceding that you can't support your case and that its just a baseless opinion.

[Gurdur]

Fun thread, though.