94 percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible

[Angus McPresley]

Lauren Green of Fox news, commenting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html) on the Kathy Griffin "suck it, Jesus" Emmy acceptance speech, reports:

Ninety-four percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible; 34 percent quote the Bible directly.

While her commentary on the whole is pretty easy to refute (pray tell me, Lauren, where the Bible even mentions free speech), I must say I've never heard this statistic before. Any idea where it might derive from?

[Ducky]

unless the contention is that "In the year of our lord" is mentioning the bible, I find those numbers hard to believe. It would appear to me to be pulled from someone's rear end.

Constitution: No mention of God or religion, except of course in the amendment regarding "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of..."
Declaration of Independence: No moention of religion, sans a vague reference to a "creator"
Articles of Confederation: No mention of the bible I can find.

Any other documents I am missing? I seem to recall one state congressional document that wished everyone a merry christmas, but iirc it was a resolution passed simply to wish people a merry christmas.

[brodski]

What is this claim actually saying, it appears to be a claim about the founding documents of the USA (Declaration of independence, constitution and amendments and so on), if it isn’t. It doesn’t say “founding documents” its says “founding [b]era[/i] documents” (my bold). I’ll take the founding era to be 1765-1783 (although the exact dates aren’t important).

The claim is that in those 18 years, 90% of all documents contained a reference to the bible- bills of sail, contracts, personal letters, laws, minuets of meetings etc. etc. have been demonstrated to reference the bible?

That’s’ a pretty extraordinary claim, and even if it is true, it’s pretty meaningless.

[Cello Man]

Looks like DOC is writing for Fox News. I would love to know where the author came up with that figure, though.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1166546ea7a301ca7c.png

[Hardenbergh]

Ninety-four percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible; 34 percent quote the Bible directly.

Thanks! That's just what I needed to get me going this morning. I'm a little grumpy but that perked me up.

[TV's Frank]

Isn't "suck it, Jesus" a mention of the Bible, too?

[JoeEllison]

Political Christians are both stupid and dishonest. That goes double for the ones on Fox "News".

[KingMerv00]

Isn't the Constitution the only one the really really really matters?

Are they referring to State founding documents maybe?

[hgc]

All founding era documents? Shopping lists? Shipping manifests? Letters home to Mama? Beer recipes? Federalist Papers? Holy cow, those founding era folks were cookoo for Jesus!

[Gravy]

The fun part of this story is that it features Chuck Norris.*

The 34% is cherry-picked from a 1984 study by Donald Lutz, as this site (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/15/04011/4130) points out. Details:

From this chart it really does appear that 34% of the citations in the documents studied came from the Bible. That's because they did. And, without Lutz's explanation of this figure, this chart seems to support the assertion that the Bible, more than any other source, influenced the political thought of the founders. So, the religious right history revisionists simply omit the following explanation of the chart provided by Lutz....From Table 1 we can see that the biblical tradition is most prominent among the citations. Anyone familiar with the literature will know that most of these citations come from sermons reprinted as pamphlets; hundreds of sermons were reprinted during the era, amounting to at least 10% of all pamphlets published. These reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations...The 94% appears to be a rectal extraction.


*Sorry, not that Chuck Norris.

[ImaginalDisc]

unless the contention is that "In the year of our lord" is mentioning the bible, I find those numbers hard to believe. It would appear to me to be pulled from someone's rear end.

Constitution: No mention of God or religion, except of course in the amendment regarding "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of..."
Declaration of Independence: No moention of religion, sans a vague reference to a "creator"
Articles of Confederation: No mention of the bible I can find.

Any other documents I am missing? I seem to recall one state congressional document that wished everyone a merry christmas, but iirc it was a resolution passed simply to wish people a merry christmas.

Wasn't the language of "Creator," as in "Endowed by their Creator," in that context explicetely deist, and self-conciously divorced from established Churches and traditional Christianity?

[Cleon]

Ah, another example of "lying for Jesus."

I wonder how long before DOC starts citing this as gospel (pun intended)...

If I could just go off on a rant here for a moment...



Why are fundamentalists so insecure about their beliefs that they need to lie about it?

Creationism.
The "US is built on Christian values" revisionist BS.
Fabricated/distorted stories about Christian students having their bibles taken by public schools and similar crap.

You don't see this kind of crap from religious moderates. Somehow, those of us who are simply content to believe don't feel the need to reinforce our beliefs (or push them on others) with a steady stream of bullcrap.

[joobz]

Lauren Green of Fox news, commenting (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html) on the Kathy Griffin "suck it, Jesus" Emmy acceptance speech, reports:



While her commentary on the whole is pretty easy to refute (pray tell me, Lauren, where the Bible even mentions free speech), I must say I've never heard this statistic before. Any idea where it might derive from?
91.756543% of statistics are completely made up.*


*I remember debating a family member about abortion and she started quoting statistics that seemed completely off to me. I asked simply for a source of that information. I was told, "Well, common sense says it has to be arround that number." In fact, she was convinced that all statistics weren't actually based on anything but conjecture and opinion, and that she was completely allowed to make up numbers as best fit. I have a feeling that this view isn't her's alone.

[JoeEllison]

This is a style of lie that I'm familiar with. I am, for example, a GULF WAR ERA VETERAN!! Of course Desert Shield/Storm took place while I was in high school, I didn't enlist until 1994, and I barely managed to leave my home state in four years... but I can imply that I was hooking and jabbing in the hot LZ, out of ammo, broken bayonet, and the entire Iraqi Republican Guard over the next dune. :)

[kedo1981]

I wonder what percentage of bible quotes are used in books/documents by those who were the founding fathers of the confederacy/ pro slavery in the nineteenth century?
Or the KKK, apartide, on and on and on.

[hgc]

91.756543% of statistics are completely made up.*


*I remember debating a family member about abortion and she started quoting statistics that seemed completely off to me. I asked simply for a source of that information. I was told, "Well, common sense says it has to be arround that number." In fact, she was convinced that all statistics weren't actually based on anything but conjecture and opinion, and that she was completely allowed to make up numbers as best fit. I have a feeling that this view isn't her's alone.


It's a branch of Creation Math, known as Soliptistics.

[tsg]

It's yet another attempt to support the "Christian Nation" myth.

What we're supposed to believe from this so-called fact is that the founding fathers were inspired by Christianity when forming this nation.

Except that it isn't necessarily documents written by the founding fathers themselves. Just documents written during that period in our history. As others have pointed out, it could be anything from newspaper articles to letters to mom to shopping lists.

And, of course, what she doesn't say is that if 95% of the documents from that era said "the Bible is a complete and utter lie," it would still count as "mentioning the Bible."

I like the statement someone else (I forget who, sorry) made in another thread: "You could show that Thomas Jefferson ritually crucified himself every Easter and it still wouldn't prove he thought mixing government and religion was a good idea."

[kmortis]

Just as a guess, I'd say that a goodly amount of posts here mention the Bible, directly or indirectly. It's the society, really. The Bible has had an enormous influence on Western civilization, so it's not really suprizing that a good percentage of writings of any sort (minus fully technical) would reference it. It's our common mythology. Even if you weren't raised in it, you probably know most of the stories.

Now, to the factual part of 90+%, that's an exercise in button sorting. I say that wasshername can provide us with a rigiorous study of all the documents written circa 1782.

[dogjones]

All founding era documents? Shopping lists? Shipping manifests? Letters home to Mama? Beer recipes? Federalist Papers? Holy cow, those founding era folks were cookoo for Jesus!

That is beautifully Liebowitzian! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz)

[Miss Anthrope]

Looks like DOC is writing for Fox News. I would love to know where the author came up with that figure, though.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1166546ea7a301ca7c.png


:sewub:

[ponderingturtle]

It's yet another attempt to support the "Christian Nation" myth.

What we're supposed to believe from this so-called fact is that the founding fathers were inspired by Christianity when forming this nation.

Well they where. They looked at all the various sect specific Christian nations in Europe, all the religious wars and said "OK we do not want a Christian nation"

So it was inspired by Christianity, just as a rejection of it instead of embracing it.

[Morrigan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1166546ea7a301ca7c.png

:newlol :newlol :newlol

[timhau]

Wasn't the language of "Creator," as in "Endowed by their Creator," in that context explicetely deist, and self-conciously divorced from established Churches and traditional Christianity?

If it wasn't, why didn't it simply say "da Lawd" or "Gawd"?

[Wowbagger]

I actually read this article, and almost thought it was satire. It just sounded so much like something a kindergarten student would say: "Jesus is mentioned a whole lot, therefore he has everything to with everything we ever do."

Of course, the fact that Lauren brushes aside the Crusades, and similar atrocities, as "unbiblical" moments is a clue that she is trying to be more serious than your average kindergartener. And, that makes it sad. She seems to forget that the rise of secular nations is actually one of the "weapons" we have against future religion-based atrocities.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Isn't "suck it, Jesus" a mention of the Bible, too?
I believe you're thinking of, "And Jesus said, 'Suck it,' and so Magdalene did . . ."

[Angus McPresley]

91.756543% of statistics are completely made up.*

That's a lie! The actual figure is only 87.641%.

*I remember debating a family member about abortion and she started quoting statistics that seemed completely off to me. I asked simply for a source of that information. I was told, "Well, common sense says it has to be around that number." In fact, she was convinced that all statistics weren't actually based on anything but conjecture and opinion, and that she was completely allowed to make up numbers as best fit. I have a feeling that this view isn't her's alone.

I think that's exactly how the Fox news columnist in question sees it. It's all about truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness).

[kmortis]

91.756543% of statistics are completely made up.

That's a lie! The actual figure is only 87.641%.
One of my long running jokes (that I semi-stole from John Allen Pallos) is that 51% of all statistics are mae up on the spot.

Let me repeat that for the cheap seats

64% of all statistics are mae up on the spot.

The guys at work finally caught on after about 6 months of me saying this, and I've noticed them using it as well.

It's nice to see someone else use it too.

[tsg]

I always wanted to start a website where people could post "cites" for any statistic they could dream up. The url, of course, would be www outofmyass com

ETA: unfortunately someone already has the domain name, hence the mangle.

[Bob Klase]

That's a lie! The actual figure is only 87.641%.

Of course there's only a 37.537% chance that either of you is correct.

[kmortis]

I always wanted to start a website where people could post "cites" for any statistic they could dream up. The url, of course, would be www outofmyass com

ETA: unfortunately someone already has the domain name, hence the mangle.

You're always welcome to write articles for my magazine, Baseless Calims Quarterly.

[DOC]

While her commentary on the whole is pretty easy to refute (pray tell me, Lauren, where the Bible even mentions free speech), I must say I've never heard this statistic before. Any idea where it might derive from?

I'm not sure, but these facts are along the same line.

According to the author of the listed website the following info is from Dr. James Kennedy's book, " What if America was a Christian Nation Again"


http://www.truthpizza.org/post/nitardy7.htm


"Below I have listed 19 of 25 items that show the Bible (Theism) and God were a basic foundation of our country.

1. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times.
2. The Articles of Confederation mention God.
3. The Constitution is explicitly signed, "in the year of our lord". Now in our schools BC has been changed to BCE.
4. The treaty of Paris in 1783, negotiated by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, acknowledged the Trinity as it made official our separation from Great Britain. It began "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity."
5. Chaplains have been on the public payroll from the very beginning.
6. The Constitutions of all 50 states mention God in one way or another.
7. The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
8. Our national anthem mentions God.
9. Every president has been sworn in on the Bible.
10. Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
11. Virtually every president has called for a national days of prayer, of fasting, of thanksgiving. This included James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
12. Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
13. Oaths in the courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
14. The Christmas and thanksgiving holidays are Christian holidays.
15. God is mentioned all over Washington, D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
16. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and of the ten commandments. A total of twenty depictions.
17. Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust".
18. The freedom Shrine exhibits tell the story of American liberty, and God is mentioned in many if not most of these documents on public display.
19. The Bible was the primary textbook in our schools. Children learned their ABC's using Biblical words.

Newsweek said some years ago, "Historians are now coming to realize that the Bible , even more than the Constitution, founded the nation of America."

[JoeEllison]

Newsweek said some years ago, "Historians are now coming to realize that the Bible , even more than the Constitution, founded the nation of America."

This isn't true, you've been shown that it isn't true, you ignore all the facts or you're a liar. Which is it?

[geni]

Declaration of Independence: No moention of religion, sans a vague reference to a "creator"

So what is this "Supreme Judge of the World"?

[JoeEllison]

So what is this "Supreme Judge of the World"?

That's me. Now, now... quit with the bowing and scraping... ok, maybe just a little more.:D

[Angus McPresley]

3. The Constitution is explicitly signed, "in the year of our lord". Now in our schools BC has been changed to BCE.


What a reach. You'd think that the Constitution, which lays down the law of the land, would be replete with references to Jebus if the founding fathers had meant this to be a Christian nation, wouldn't you?

[JoeEllison]

What a reach. You'd think that the Constitution, which lays down the law of the land, would be replete with references to Jebus if the founding fathers had meant this to be a Christian nation, wouldn't you?

Yeah, instead the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments... something DOC has avoided dealing with, because it makes his "point" very obviously and stupidly wrong.

[joobz]

[snip nonsense]
I see you forgot to include the treaty of tripoli which actually mentions christianity. That must also prove that this nation is christian, right?

oh wait, it says
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Ahh, too bad. You still haven't made this fact go away. You see, this legal document,which is considered the law of the land and was unanimously voted on and signed by the president, clearly states that this country isn't christian.

[JoeEllison]

I see you forgot to include the treaty of tripoli which actually mentions christianity. That must also prove that this nation is christian, right?

oh wait, it says


Ahh, too bad. You still haven't made this fact go away. You see, this legal document,which is considered the law of the land and was unanimously voted on and signed by the president, clearly states that this country isn't christian.

He just declares that facts that disagree with him are wrong. Weird, I know, but that's what passes for intellectual integrity with him. He thinks "Jesus" appreciates his lying and such.

[geni]

What a reach. You'd think that the Constitution, which lays down the law of the land, would be replete with references to Jebus if the founding fathers had meant this to be a Christian nation, wouldn't you?

No. UK is a christian nation however the various documents that are the closest the UK has had to a consititution don't tend to mention jesus.

The 1701 act of settlement mentions god 4 times but not jesus. And this is an act that has a fair section banning catholics from the throne.

The 1707 act of union doesn't mention god or jesus but has one para dealing with the issue of relgion.

Magna Carta which was partly writen due to conflicts with the pope as well as the barons racks up 4 mentions of god and zero of jesus. Christians are never directly mentioned although jews are in their role as money lenders (where it is outlawing chargeing interest on sums owed by minors).

[JoeEllison]

No. UK is a christian nation.

No, I'm pretty sure it is a constitutional monarchy.

[geni]

9. Every president has been sworn in on the Bible.

Nope. John Quincy Adams took the oath on a volume of law. Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a bible for hist first term. Herbert Hoover due to Quaker issues was affirmed rather than sworn in. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Catholic Missal.

[geni]

No, I'm pretty sure it is a constitutional monarchy.

And that monarch is head of the state religion which is a form of christianity. By any reasonable definition of the term the UK has historicaly been a christian nation.

[JoeEllison]

And that monarch is head of the state religion which is a form of christianity. By any reasonable definition of the term the UK has historicaly been a christian nation.

So, by that definition America is NOT a Christian nation. Thanks.

[geni]

Yeah, instead the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments... something DOC has avoided dealing with, because it makes his "point" very obviously and stupidly wrong.

UK law doesn't follow it that closely if only because it is a bit hard to come up with a legal mechanism to enforce "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.".

[JoeEllison]

UK law doesn't follow it that closely if only because it is a bit hard to come up with a legal mechanism to enforce "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.".
Yeah, but the American Constitution directly contradicts it. That's a far cry from "doesn't follow it that closely".

[geni]

So, by that definition America is NOT a Christian nation. Thanks.

I didn't give a single definition. I simply made the UK's case for being a christian nation. In the case of the US you could make a different argument based on percentage of population who subscribed to chritianity or by considering the how much effect various relgious positions have on US culture.

The UK is the 18th centry is kinda handy as a test case for a christian nation since almost regardless of the defintion you use the UK comes out as christian. The one posible exception is if you demand it be founded on christian principles since it was mostly founded on the people in charge wanting to rule a larger area.

[geni]

Yeah, but the American Constitution directly contradicts it. That's a far cry from "doesn't follow it that closely".

UK (well mostly england the UK bit was only a technicality because someone forgot to outlaw it) allowed trial by combat. Have fun squareing that with the ten commandments.

[joobz]

I didn't give a single definition. I simply made the UK's case for being a christian nation. In the case of the US you could make a different argument based on percentage of population who subscribed to chritianity or by considering the how much effect various relgious positions have on US culture.

The UK is the 18th centry is kinda handy as a test case for a christian nation since almost regardless of the defintion you use the UK comes out as christian. The one posible exception is if you demand it be founded on christian principles since it was mostly founded on the people in charge wanting to rule a larger area.

But the point here is if the government is christian, which it isn't.

[geni]

But the point here is if the government is christian, which it isn't.

Most of the members of the US goverment are nominaly christian. US is currently ruled by a christian goverment.

[JoeEllison]

Most of the members of the US goverment are nominaly christian. US is currently ruled by a christian goverment.

So, you're also saying that America has an Elderly White Male system of government? Or are you just really confused?

[joobz]

Most of the members of the US goverment are nominaly christian. US is currently ruled by a christian goverment.
Don't remind me about the current government. But at the very least, when taken to court christian ran policies are found unconstitutional. (see faith based prison reforms).

[JoeEllison]

I didn't give a single definition. I simply made the UK's case for being a christian nation. In the case of the US you could make a different argument based on percentage of population who subscribed to chritianity or by considering the how much effect various relgious positions have on US culture.

So, basically, you shift the standard arbitrarily in order to come to whatever conclusion you desire? Sounds like a dishonest way of discussing things.

[geni]

So, you're also saying that America has an Elderly White Male system of government?

That would appear to be the case at the present time and indeed most of it's history.

[geni]

So, basically, you shift the standard arbitrarily in order to come to whatever conclusion you desire? Sounds like a dishonest way of discussing things.

Nope. You were takeing the position that "if the US was a christian nation we would expect to see X". The problem is that you have not defined the term christian nation so while I can try and use the UK as a counter example I can't be certain that you will not define the term in a way that excludes the UK. So what defintion are you useing?

[JoeEllison]

That would appear to be the case at the present time and indeed most of it's history.

So, you're talking nonsense. You should maybe rethink your position. :rolleyes:

[geni]

So, you're talking nonsense. You should maybe rethink your position. :rolleyes:

You might want to consider that I come from the UK and thus when it comes to how a country is run I'm going to tend to focus on de facto rather than De jure if only because I don't feel like trying to defend the position that Mauritania was a democracy between 1984-2005.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So what is this "Supreme Judge of the World"?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/758346ecaca14d69c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8352)

[DOC]

What a reach. You'd think that the Constitution, which lays down the law of the land, would be replete with references to Jebus if the founding fathers had meant this to be a Christian nation, wouldn't you?

Not so. Many of the states had official religions and for this reason I believe the founders wanted to leave that up to the states. The new federal gov't back then had much less power than it has now. And there wasn't even a federal income tax until over 110 years later. From what I've read the state supreme courts were usually the final say on things except interstate and international cases. Bottom line back then the states had much more power vis a vis the federal gov't then they do today. Jefferson wanted the Federal Gov't to have the least amount of power as possible. Unfortunately that never happened.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
Yeah, instead the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments...




Why?

[DOC]

Nope. John Quincy Adams took the oath on a volume of law.

Yeah, but it wasn't because he didn't venerate the Bible.

Quotes by John Quincy Adams --America's 6th president and son of America's 2nd president.


"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” [July 4th, 1821]

"From the day of the Declaration [of Independence]…they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct.” [July 4th, 1821]

“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"? [July 4th, 1837 when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts]

“So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society. I have for many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year.”


http://www.eadshome.com/JohnQuincyAdams.htm
All materials produced by EadsHome Ministries are free for your use as long as a profit is not made.

[Angus McPresley]

Not so. Many of the states had official religions and for this reason I believe the founders wanted to leave that up to the states.


Which only says to me that they didn't want Christianity installed at the highest levels, hence they didn't want a "Christian nation". Unless I am misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What a reach. You'd think that the Constitution, which lays down the law of the land, would be replete with references to Jebus if the founding fathers had meant this to be a Christian nation, wouldn't you?

They tried to rectify that oversight with a Christian Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment) changing the wording of the Preamble.

All attempts have failed miserably.

[DOC]

Which only says to me that they didn't want Christianity installed at the highest levels, hence they didn't want a "Christian nation". Unless I am misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

One of their main goals was to get all of the states to go along with the constitution. Do you think some of the states would go along with a constitution that tinkered with their official religion -- No. This is also why slavery was not banned in the constitution, Because southern states never would of approved of it.

Basically all the Constitution says (regarding religion) is that Congress can't make an official religion. That power was left up to the states if they chose to do so. It wasn't until Hugo "KKK" Black and Leo "ACLU committee member" Pfeffer came along in 1947 that the establishment clause of the founders was tinkered with and the "legal term" Separation of Church and State was born. And things like kicking the boy scouts out of their 90 year leases could occur.

[UnrepentantSinner]

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” [July 4th, 1821]

Uh Oh. There goes DOC citing untrustworthy sources again.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/misq5.htm

[kmortis]

One of their main goals was to get all of the states to go along with the constitution. Do you think some of the states would go along with a constitution that tinkered with their official religion -- No. This is also why slavery was not banned in the constitution, Because southern states never would of approved of it.

Basically all the Constitution says (regarding religion) is that Congress can't make an official religion. That power was left up to the states if they chose to do so. It wasn't until Hugo "KKK" Black and Leo "ACLU committee member" Pfeffer came along in 1947 that the establishment clause of the founders was tinkered with and the "legal term" Separation of Church and State was born. And things like kicking the boy scouts out of their 90 year leases could occur.

I've got it! You're Andy Kaufmann, come back to entertain us again with your particular brand of comedy stylings! Sweet!

[Ducky]

I'm not sure, but these facts are along the same line.

According to the author of the listed website the following info is from Dr. James Kennedy's book, " What if America was a Christian Nation Again"


http://www.truthpizza.org/post/nitardy7.htm


"Below I have listed 19 of 25 items that show the Bible (Theism) and God were a basic foundation of our country.

1. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times.
2. The Articles of Confederation mention God.
3. The Constitution is explicitly signed, "in the year of our lord". Now in our schools BC has been changed to BCE.
4. The treaty of Paris in 1783, negotiated by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, acknowledged the Trinity as it made official our separation from Great Britain. It began "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity."
5. Chaplains have been on the public payroll from the very beginning.
6. The Constitutions of all 50 states mention God in one way or another.
7. The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
8. Our national anthem mentions God.
9. Every president has been sworn in on the Bible.
10. Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
11. Virtually every president has called for a national days of prayer, of fasting, of thanksgiving. This included James Madison, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.
12. Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
13. Oaths in the courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
14. The Christmas and thanksgiving holidays are Christian holidays.
15. God is mentioned all over Washington, D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
16. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and of the ten commandments. A total of twenty depictions.
17. Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust".
18. The freedom Shrine exhibits tell the story of American liberty, and God is mentioned in many if not most of these documents on public display.
19. The Bible was the primary textbook in our schools. Children learned their ABC's using Biblical words.

Newsweek said some years ago, "Historians are now coming to realize that the Bible , even more than the Constitution, founded the nation of America."



This post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2448819#post2448819) dealt with all this BS then, and you never replied to it. Now you repeat it. Is this in hopes that we won't remember you were totally rebuked last time with it?

When can we expect you to post about the Trinity decision again without having addressed my points on it?

Edit:

You didn't respond to this refutation by Geni, either, you selectively quoted it and ignored most of the substance of it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2967594#post2967594

[Big Les]

To me, to say that the UK (or the US) are "christian nations" is pretty meaningless. It's practically an accident of history that christianity was the dominant religion when our respective nations were founded, and that as a result the majority religion is still christianity. I see it as an historical inheritance that for most is an irrelevance, that the rest of us take note of and give due respect to but largely ignore as far as influence upon our lives goes. Thus you could call the UK or the US "christian countries", but in many ways, so what? Let's continue to push for secular government and multi-faith/non-faith countries.

I would suggest that the UK at least, could be just as legitimately be described as a "secular country" as a "christian country" (as geni put it).

[Foster Zygote]

I wonder if DOC will ever get to a deeper point. Like "The United States is officially a Christian nation and therefore..."

[joobz]

I wonder if DOC will ever get to a deeper point. Like "The United States is officially a Christian nation and therefore..."
He'll never get to any deeper point, because he knows deep down that the initial premise is wrong. He knows that this isn't a christian nation.

It's why he ignores my posts when I quote the treaty of tripoli
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

It's hard for him to argue with a document that is considered the law of the land.;)

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
Yeah, instead the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments...




Why?Have you read the Ten Commandments? Have you read the Bill Of Rights?

When you have, get back to me. You really can't be this dense, can you?

[GreNME]

Most of the members of the US goverment are nominaly christian. US is currently ruled by a christian goverment.

No offense, but the first thing I think of when I hear things like this are the multitude of times when I have point out (to family, friends, or whomever) things like "yeah, isn't that senator who just got in trouble a Christian as well?" and get back something to the effect of "he's not a good Christian." Well, since the crux of the debate seems to be the religious credentials of the government in general, who is a good example of a Christian in government? Not to get all godwin-ish or anything, but this is exactly why I hate discussions of the religiosity of the leaders in the Nazi Party, even though many of them were at least attendees of curches and some of their publications cite Martin Luther to a noticable degree on some occasions. The point isn't that religious political leaders are bad, but that people who are arguing favorably for the religiosity of governments and laws are usually only willing to accept examples of benevolent successes as being religiously motivated while attributing all else to the "other side."

The second thing I think of is: hrm... well, it seems I can't post the image, but it is the popular pie chart showing Christians as the vast majority over everything else, with a cartoon speech bubble coming from it exclaiming "Help, we're being oppressed!" The image is obviously satire, but it illustrates an underlying motive behind much of the revisionist historical commentary by the religious right. After all, if the good-old U-S-of-A was formed from the Body of Christ, as it were, then all this secular humanism taking control of the nation would naturally be an attempt to attack the very foundations upon which America was built. Stir the patriot by pulling the strings of faith, and you can justify social jingoism to an impressive degree. :)

[CFLarsen]

unless the contention is that "In the year of our lord" is mentioning the bible, I find those numbers hard to believe. It would appear to me to be pulled from someone's rear end.

Constitution: No mention of God or religion, except of course in the amendment regarding "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of..."

Take a look at the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Sorry, but that went out the window with the "In God We Trust" on the currency:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.
Source: US Dept. of Treasury (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml)

Declaration of Independence: No moention of religion, sans a vague reference to a "creator"

Not quite:

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

And the "Creator" is not vague at all:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

Creator clearly means "God". These rights are endowed. Given to you. That's an act, done by someone or something.

Don't kid yourself. And don't quote selectively.

Articles of Confederation: No mention of the bible I can find.

Any other documents I am missing? I seem to recall one state congressional document that wished everyone a merry christmas, but iirc it was a resolution passed simply to wish people a merry christmas.

Don't say that the founding papers of the United States don't mention God. That's historical revisionism.

[joobz]

Take a look at the first amendment:

Sorry, but that went out the window with the "In God We Trust" on the currency:


Not quite:

And the "Creator" is not vague at all:

Creator clearly means "God". These rights are endowed. Given to you. That's an act, done by someone or something.

Don't kid yourself. And don't quote selectively.



Don't say that the founding papers of the United States don't mention God. That's historical revisionism.
God doesn't mean christian god. There is no reason to infer that it does.

[CFLarsen]

God doesn't mean christian god. There is no reason to infer that it does.

I don't. And that's not the point. The point it that it mentions a supernatural, religious creator.

Even so: Do you really think they meant Shiva?

[Cleon]

Don't say that the founding papers of the United States don't mention God. That's historical revisionism.


Ducky didn't say any such thing.

I trust you will apologize for and correct your error post-haste.

[joobz]

I don't. And that's not the point. The point it that it mentions a supernatural, religious creator.

Even so: Do you really think they meant Shiva?
No, I think they had a diestic view in mind. which is consistent for the time.
the argument is that the claim that this country was founded on christian principles is incorrect. There is an element of revisionism that is going on that has claimed that the forefathers intended religious freedom to only mean between denominations and that we live in a christian country.

The primary argument they make is the number of references to a god that is made. While true, there is never a claim that it is the god of abraham. indeed, the treaty of tripoli states clearly that the founders of this nation didn't use the christian faith as a founding principle at all. As such, it has no inherent emnity to any other religious nation. this is a very important point and one that should not be minimized.

[brodski]

No, I'm pretty sure it is a constitutional monarchy.

And? It is a Constitutional Christian monarchy. The motto of the English crown, as sued by some remnant departments is my God and my right, our head of state is also the head of our established church, our national antehrm is God save the queen, and senior Anglican Bishops mathematically get seats in parliment.
By any reasonable definition of a Christian state, the UK fits it. ironically, religion plays only a minor role in our politics, and being overtly religious can do more harm than good to a politicians carer (see Ruth Kelly, or Tony Blair's refusal to speak about his faith“we don't do the religion thing”).

[CFLarsen]

Ducky didn't say any such thing.

I trust you will apologize for and correct your error post-haste.

His post clearly is a rejection of the mention of a deity. With exceptions, of course, yet they are attempted to be explained away.

Why do you ignore his selective quoting?

No, I think they had a diestic view in mind. which is consistent for the time.

Awhat? How do you figure that?

the argument is that the claim that this country was founded on christian principles is incorrect. There is an element of revisionism that is going on that has claimed that the forefathers intended religious freedom to only mean between denominations and that we live in a christian country.

The primary argument they make is the number of references to a god that is made. While true, there is never a claim that it is the god of abraham. indeed, the treaty of tripoli states clearly that the founders of this nation didn't use the christian faith as a founding principle at all. As such, it has no inherent emnity to any other religious nation. this is a very important point and one that should not be minimized.

Whoa.

First, the Treaty of Tripoli is from 1796, somewhat after the formation of the US.

Second, it doesn't matter if the god in question is the abrahamic god. What matters is that it is a god.

[brodski]

I would suggest that the UK at least, could be just as legitimately be described as a "secular country" as a "christian country" (as geni put it).

the UK may be a "secular country" but it is a Chirstian state. And yes, it is an accident of history, but then, what isn't?

[Cleon]

His post clearly is a rejection of the mention of a deity. With exceptions, of course, yet they are attempted to be explained away.

Why do you ignore his selective quoting?

No, his post is clearly a rejection of the claims made in the OP (and subsequently by DOC). At no point did Ducky say, hint, or imply that "the founding papers of the United States don't mention God." That is entirely your invention.


Why can't you simply own up to your mistake? Is it that difficult to say "oh, hey, I jumped the gun a little, my mistake?"

[joobz]

Awhat? How do you figure that?
simply the fact that franklin, Jefferson, washington, Locke among others were deists.


Whoa.

First, the Treaty of Tripoli is from 1796, somewhat after the formation of the US.
It clarified the intent of the founding fathers. Afterall, they were still alive and in office. John Adams was president at the time.


Second, it doesn't matter if the god in question is the abrahamic god. What matters is that it is a god.
It makes all the difference in the world. the US has no inherent belief in any one god. Sure the founders believed in one, but this religion was not written into the constituion. Indeed, they wrote into is a pure seperation of the two entities.

[DOC]

It's why he ignores my posts when I quote the treaty of tripoli

Yes I ignored it the 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th, 7th, 8th etc. you brought up the treaty made with a Muslim nation that supported piracy (and eventually resulted in a war). But as I said the treaty only talks about the concept that the US "Federal Government" was not founded on Christianity. The founders didn't want to tinker with the states rights (at the time) to have an official religion, All the constitution says is that Congress can't make a law that makes an official national religion.

[Ducky]

No, his post is clearly a rejection of the claims made in the OP (and subsequently by DOC). At no point did Ducky say, hint, or imply that "the founding papers of the United States don't mention God." That is entirely your invention.


Why can't you simply own up to your mistake? Is it that difficult to say "oh, hey, I jumped the gun a little, my mistake?"

I have claus on ignore, so I'll assume he posted a lesson in pedantry as some attempt to paint me saying something I didn't?

I'll rephrase so as to be perfectly clear for him:

Snakes don't have eyelids, and the constitution never mentions the bible.

[JoeEllison]

Yes I ignored it the 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th, 7th, 8th etc. you brought up the treaty made with a Muslim nation that supported piracy (and eventually resulted in a war). But as I said the treaty only talks about the concept that the US "Federal Government" was not founded on Christianity. The founders didn't want to tinker with the states rights (at the time) to have an official religion, All the constitution says is that Congress can't make a law that makes an official national religion.

So, you're still rejecting reality? Sweet! Don't ever change... not that you could.

Or, are you ever going to accept that treaties are legally binding, even if they are made with countries containing people who you are bigoted against?

[Ducky]

Yes I ignored it the 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th, 7th, 8th etc. you brought up the treaty made with a Muslim nation that supported piracy (and eventually resulted in a war). But as I said the treaty only talks about the concept that the US "Federal Government" was not founded on Christianity. The founders didn't want to tinker with the states rights (at the time) to have an official religion, All the constitution says is that Congress can't make a law that makes an official national religion.

Post #66 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2968379#post2968379) also shows you ignore quite a bit else.

[joobz]

Yes I ignored it the 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th, 7th, 8th etc. you brought up the treaty made with a Muslim nation that supported piracy (and eventually resulted in a war). But as I said the treaty only talks about the concept that the US "Federal Government" was not founded on Christianity. The founders didn't want to tinker with the states rights (at the time) to have an official religion, All the constitution says is that Congress can't make a law that makes an official national religion.
Actually, that isn't all the consitituion says. it says there shall be no national religion, nor shall the government prohibit the free exercise thereof. Effectively creating a wall of seperation.

You are correct in your claim that states could have a state religion, but this practice was eliminated when it was found lacking. Afterall, christian states permitted slavery, which is from a secular view, wholly amoral. Christianity does not preclude slavery and even condones it. such a system makes a poor ethical foundation for a government. Luckily, the united states is secular and rejects such flawed thinking.

[DOC]

Actually, that isn't all the consitituion says. it says there shall be no national religion, nor shall the government prohibit the free exercise thereof. Effectively creating a wall of seperation.

Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years. There might have been a wall in 1947 but not during Jefferson's term.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

[JoeEllison]

Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.

And we go around in the Liars for Jesus circle once again.:rolleyes:

[Ducky]

Why does DOC ignore post #66, or my pointing of it out? What is he afraid to answer?

[joobz]

Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.
if it brings you sollace to believe that this matters in some way, feel free to continue to believe that he was the most devout christian to ever walk this earth. If you honestly believe that jefferson was a devout christian, truth no longer matters to you.

But, that it the freedom offered to you in this wonderful secular nation of ours. The ACLU will continue to protect your rights to believe anything you wish and to exercise your beliefs.

Just don't expect anyone to allow you to preach lies as truth. We will always call you on it.

[joobz]

And we go around in the Liars for Jesus circle once again.:rolleyes:I've abandoned any hope for DOC to be honest. Yet, as an American (which I assume DOC is), he has all right to believe in what ever craziness he wants. The ACLU will protect him in that right.

Just as long as he doesn't try to blur the lines between government and religion, I'll be fine with it.

[joobz]

Why does DOC ignore post #66, or my pointing of it out? What is he afraid to answer?truth.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.

And we go around in the Liars for Jesus circle once again.:rolleyes:


The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.




The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

In response (which also was ignored) I had this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2935697#post2935697


Since you are rehashing everything you posted in the Jefferson thread, and there are several (if not many) things you have yet to answer for in that thread, why don't you head on back to that thread and answer them?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.




The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
DOC, all of these points have already been clearly refuted. Continuing to post these items as truth without explaining why the refutations are wrong is the same thing as a lie.

Now, if you must lie to believe in your religion, i won't stop you. but please realize that your lies have no real effect on reality or on history.

[kmortis]

The first Library of Congress was held at the Capitol Building. With all that churchin' going on in the Capitol, all the books transmorgified into Bibles. Jealous of all the Bibles, angry atheists burnt down the Capitol dressed as British soliders in 1814 in a vield mockery of the Establishment clause. Jefferson, being a solid, Bible-believing Christian, donated all his books. Woefully, the LOC was built on its current location, making sure that the books never again transmorgified, thereby saving them from redcoat-wearing heathens weilding torches.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.




The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html



DOC, all of these points have already been clearly refuted. Continuing to post these items as truth without explaining why the refutations are wrong is the same thing as a lie.


Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.

[JoeEllison]

I've abandoned any hope for DOC to be honest. Yet, as an American (which I assume DOC is), he has all right to believe in what ever craziness he wants. The ACLU will protect him in that right.

Just as long as he doesn't try to blur the lines between government and religion, I'll be fine with it.

We can count on him to post the same half-dozen links, tell the same lies, and avoid all the same facts... I don't know what he finds enjoyable about it, how he can live with lying so much, or why he hates America so much, but he does have the right to it. Too bad he'd take away our rights if given half a chance.

[kmortis]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.
The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.

Oh dear. It appears that the current Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has a stron connection to Russia. From his Wiki entry
Dr. Billington is an elected member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and has been decorated as Chevalier and again as a Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters of France, as Commander of the National Order of the Southern Cross of Brazil, awarded the Order of Merit of Italy, and a Knight Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit by the Federal Republic of Germany. He has also been awarded the Gwanghwa Medal by the Republic of Korea, and the Chingiz Aitmatov Gold Medal by the Kyrgyz Republic.
You're going to trust the words of James "USSR" Billington?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why does DOC ignore post #66, or my pointing of it out? What is he afraid to answer?

And 62 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2968192&postcount=62) and 64 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2968200&postcount=64), etc. etc.

[Foster Zygote]

He'll never get to any deeper point, because he knows deep down that the initial premise is wrong. He knows that this isn't a christian nation.

It's why he ignores my posts when I quote the treaty of tripoli


It's hard for him to argue with a document that is considered the law of the land.;)

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

[JoeEllison]

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

And he keeps ignoring that the Bill of Rights contradicts the Ten Commandments.

Lying for Jesus... what can someone get out of it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh dear. It appears that the current Librarian of Congress, Dr. James H. Billington, has a stron connection to Russia. From his Wiki entry

You're going to trust the words of James "USSR" Billington?

Actually the person responsible for that exhibit was James Hutson (http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-bio.html).

[kmortis]

Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

Butbutbut, Dr. James Kennedy says that we're a Christian Nationtm. That means that anything we do is ok. See? Therefore, it's not piracy or privateering, it's...it's...it's..it's being a good steward. Just like what's commanded in Genesis.

[kmortis]

Actually the person responsible for that exhibit was James Hutson (http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-bio.html).

But the ACLU created the term "Sepation of Church and Munch". Pope Stevie was PISSED!

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.




The following is a Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.
yes, I am very serious. All of your points (which was what I was referring you) has been clearly refuted. That exhbit is clearly only part of the story. The missing part is all of the ACTUAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS which claim otherwise. Can I ask, if our country was founded on christianity, why would the founding fathers deny it?

Becuase they were the ones who signed the treaty of tripoli and accepted it unanimously.

You should consider yourself lucky that we live in a free country that protects your rights to believe crazy ideas. If it wasn't for the ACLU, there would be a very good chance that your rights would be violated.

[joobz]

And he keeps ignoring that the Bill of Rights contradicts the Ten Commandments.

Lying for Jesus... what can someone get out of it?
I assume you are referring to the fact that commandment 1 clearly states no false gods, where our bill of rights lets you worship any god you want.

Yup, The Secular nation, the United states, is in clear violation of that primary commandment.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by DOC
Yes I knew about the "free exercise thereof part" but it wasn't the main point I trying to make. And the free exercise thereof is why Jefferson "freely exercised" his right to attend Christian church services in the Federal Capitol building for seven years.

Are you saying all the points listed in the article at the Library of Congress website:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

have been clearly refuted. You can't be serious.




You again ignore a post in which I link to a response to your LOC exhibit.

Here in post 94 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2969501#post2969501)I provided you with the response I had to the LOC exhibit in the JEfferson thread.


Again, since you seem to be rehashing everything you posted in the JEfferson thread, why don't you return to that thread and answer to the criticisms you have received there for inaccurate, misleading, or downright false assertions on your part?

[JoeEllison]

I assume you are referring to the fact that commandment 1 clearly states no false gods, where our bill of rights lets you worship any god you want.

Yup, The Secular nation, the United states, is in clear violation of that primary commandment.Also, you can't be forced to worship, which violates the one about the Sabbath.

Not to mention that freedom of speech contradicts the ones about "taking the 'lord's' name in vain", and the one about creating idols.

Oh, and nothing about "honoring" your parents, or coveting your neighbor's stuff, either.

Odd how pretty much nothing specifically religious exists in the Constitution except two negatives: no established state religion or restriction on free worship or lack of it, and no religious test for office. Nothing at all positive towards Christianity at all. Funny how they "accidentally" forgot, considering the claims of the Liars for Jesus that they were so very religious.

Wow, it just makes them look stupid!

[joobz]

Also, you can't be forced to worship, which violates the one about the Sabbath.

Not to mention that freedom of speech contradicts the ones about "taking the 'lord's' name in vain", and the one about creating idols.

Oh, and nothing about "honoring" your parents, or coveting your neighbor's stuff, either.

Odd how pretty much nothing specifically religious exists in the Constitution except two negatives: no established state religion or restriction on free worship or lack of it, and no religious test for office. Nothing at all positive towards Christianity at all. Funny how they "accidentally" forgot, considering the claims of the Liars for Jesus that they were so very religious.

Wow, it just makes them look stupid!

Don't forget the fact that the bible allows for slavery and the secular government of the united states found slavery to be morally wrong.

[JoeEllison]

Don't forget the fact that the bible allows for slavery and the secular government of the united states found slavery to be morally wrong.
What, do you mean to say that our government and laws can evolve over time, and are not solely based on the viewpoints and beliefs of people who have been dead for centuries?

[joobz]

What, do you mean to say that our government and laws can evolve over time, and are not solely based on the viewpoints and beliefs of people who have been dead for centuries?
crazy. ain't it?

[JoeEllison]

crazy. ain't it?

Do you think it was possible that maybe they actually meant it to be that way?

[joobz]

Do you think it was possible that maybe they actually meant it to be that way?
Its very possible. They seemed to have been quite smart people, who knew how dangerous dogmatic thinking can be. Maybe that's why they created a secular government that "is in no way based upon the christian religion".

[JoeEllison]

Its very possible. They seemed to have been quite smart people, who knew how dangerous dogmatic thinking can be. Maybe that's why they created a secular government that "is in no way based upon the christian religion".

Yeah, it really seems like they did something incredible when they created a secular government, capable of changing to become better and more free over time, in ways that they couldn't have imagined.

[CFLarsen]

No, his post is clearly a rejection of the claims made in the OP (and subsequently by DOC). At no point did Ducky say, hint, or imply that "the founding papers of the United States don't mention God." That is entirely your invention.


Why can't you simply own up to your mistake? Is it that difficult to say "oh, hey, I jumped the gun a little, my mistake?"

Bull.

What, no comment of Ducky's selective quoting?

simply the fact that franklin, Jefferson, washington, Locke among others were deists.

How is that "consistent for the time"? People in the US were deists?

It clarified the intent of the founding fathers. Afterall, they were still alive and in office. John Adams was president at the time.

How far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

It makes all the difference in the world. the US has no inherent belief in any one god. Sure the founders believed in one, but this religion was not written into the constituion. Indeed, they wrote into is a pure seperation of the two entities.

So, it's your contention that the US is founded on religion, just not one single religion?

I have claus on ignore, so I'll assume he posted a lesson in pedantry as some attempt to paint me saying something I didn't?

That's the problem with the ignore function: It allows people to assume wildly, without accepting any blame if their assumptions are wrong - which yours is.

I'll rephrase so as to be perfectly clear for him:

If you want to participate in a debate, you should have the guts to talk with people, instead of to people.

Snakes don't have eyelids, and the constitution never mentions the bible.

Oops. Only "bible" now? Moving a few goalposts, along with selective quoting?

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, it really seems like they did something incredible when they created a secular government, capable of changing to become better and more free over time, in ways that they couldn't have imagined.

What was Bush's first initiative as President?

Yup. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush's_first_term_as_President_of_the_Un ited_States#Conservative_agenda)

So much for secular government.

[Cleon]

Bull.

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you. :(

[kmortis]

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you. :(

You had any left?

Claus,
No, most of the colonists were not Deists. That much is true. But most of the colonists didn't write the founding documents. For the most part, those WERE written by Deists.

And no, Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" is not tantamount to a theocracy. Granted, it is legitimate to consider it the proverbial camel's nose, but it is easily reversed, a reversal which is underway. It doesn't establish one religion over another, it doens't make it manditory for me to go to church on sunday, rather than sit in front of my computer in my underwear, responding to people here. No, I will not pay your therapist bill for that mental image.

[CFLarsen]

*sigh*

Sorry to hear that, Claus. I just lost a lot of respect for you. :(

Would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

Still no comment of Ducky's selective quoting? Why not?

Claus,
No, most of the colonists were not Deists. That much is true. But most of the colonists didn't write the founding documents. For the most part, those WERE written by Deists.

And?

And no, Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" is not tantamount to a theocracy.

I didn't say it was.

Granted, it is legitimate to consider it the proverbial camel's nose, but it is easily reversed, a reversal which is underway. It doesn't establish one religion over another, it doens't make it manditory for me to go to church on sunday, rather than sit in front of my computer in my underwear, responding to people here. No, I will not pay your therapist bill for that mental image.

What it did, was draw a direct line between government funds and religious groups. Those who were not religious and/or opposed abortion, got zilch.

When a government links religion with abortion, it is time to take notice. Serious notice.

[kmortis]

And?

I didn't say it was.

What it did, was draw a direct line between government funds and religious groups. Those who were not religious and/or opposed abortion, got zilch.

When a government links religion with abortion, it is time to take notice. Serious notice.
Ok, I'll play along. What's your point, Claus? Do you have one, or just pot-stirring again?

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I'll play along. What's your point, Claus? Do you have one, or just pot-stirring again?

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

[Big Les]

the UK may be a "secular country" but it is a Chirstian state. And yes, it is an accident of history, but then, what isn't?

The difference (from other social conventions, institutions, or even laws) being that we aren't really beholden to christianity unless we wish to be. Most of us can choose to ignore it without legal or social sanction. We don't even have to pay lip service to it. What qualitative difference does the UK being a "christian state" make to my everyday life as an atheist? Or even my neighbours as a Muslim?

[joobz]

How is that "consistent for the time"? People in the US were deists? in the social circles that were influential in designing the government. Yes.

How far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?
Actually, the question is, what is your point? I've made it clear I was refering to what the founding fathers intentions were for the United states. Don't be needlessly obtuse.

So, it's your contention that the US is founded on religion, just not one single religion?
yes, you can say that. It was founded on the principle that there isn't one right religion.

[CFLarsen]

in the social circles that were influential in designing the government. Yes.

Ah. In "influential" "social circles".

Conveniently fuzzy terms.

Actually, the question is, what is your point? I've made it clear I was refering to what the founding fathers intentions were for the United states. Don't be needlessly obtuse.

No, the question is, how far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point?

yes, you can say that. It was founded on the principle that there isn't one right religion.

That's not what I asked. I asked if it is your contention that the US was founded on religion (but not one single one)?

[Cleon]

Would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

Wow. Just wow. :(


Still no comment of Ducky's selective quoting? Why not?

I would be happy to discuss Ducky's analysis, which I am of the opinion is essentially correct.

However, I would prefer to limit such discussion to what he actually said. Since you apparently don't feel bound by such petty constraints, I am electing to not waste my time.

[joobz]

Ah. In "influential" "social circles".

Conveniently fuzzy terms.
hardly. I've referenced Locke, Franklin, Washington, jefferson all having diest leanings. Would you claim they had no influence and weren't in similar social circles.



No, the question is, how far ahead in time do you wish to go? Well beyond the formation of the US, but then, what's your point? I answered your question. The founding fathers were still in office, only 10 years post constitution ratification. How can you think that the treaty wasn't a clarification of thier intent? Unless, of course, you believe that all of the founding fathers were dead by then and we had a completely different set of legislatures who preverted the government by that time.:rolleyes:

That's not what I asked. I asked if it is your contention that the US was founded on religion (but not one single one)?
I answered your question. Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one.


ETA: The Bill of rights were added to the constitution 2-4 years after the constitution was ratified. Is that too late from the time of the founding of the government to be considered the intentions of the founding fathers?

[kmortis]

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

Ok your point is oversimplification of history and paranoia. Gotcha.

[CFLarsen]

Wow. Just wow. :(

It's a perfectly reasonable question. You want me to apologize, even though I don't think I am wrong.

So, would you apologize if you didn't think you were wrong?

I would be happy to discuss Ducky's analysis, which I am of the opinion is essentially correct.

However, I would prefer to limit such discussion to what he actually said. Since you apparently don't feel bound by such petty constraints, I am electing to not waste my time.

Despite that his omissions contradicted him?

hardly. I've referenced Locke, Franklin, Washington, jefferson all having diest leanings. Would you claim they had no influence and weren't in similar social circles.

Not at all. However, it is impossible to gauge that "influence".

I answered your question. The founding fathers were still in office, only 10 years post constitution ratification. How can you think that the treaty wasn't a clarification of thier intent? Unless, of course, you believe that all of the founding fathers were dead by then and we had a completely different set of legislatures who preverted the government by that time.:rolleyes:

OK, 10 years. Why not further?

I answered your question. Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one.

But was it founded on religion?

You really don't want to answer that one, do you?

ETA: The Bill of rights were added to the constitution 2-4 years after the constitution was ratified. Is that too late from the time of the founding of the government to be considered the intentions of the founding fathers?

You tell me.

Ok your point is oversimplification of history and paranoia. Gotcha.

Oversimplification? Even paranoia? How so?

Or would you rather stop here?

[joobz]

Not at all. However, it is impossible to gauge that "influence".I'm not certain of your point. I hold that christianity wasn't a founding principle of the United states.




OK, 10 years. Why not further?If you have information to counter my claim, please present it. Do you have other legal documents to state that the founding fathers had a desire to create christian nation?


But was it founded on religion?

You really don't want to answer that one, do you?

I've answered it twice already. What part of Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one", do you not understand?


You tell me.
tell you what?

[CFLarsen]

I'm not certain of your point. I hold that christianity wasn't a founding principle of the United states.

It is not possible to gauge that influence you are talking about.

If you have information to counter my claim, please present it. Do you have other legal documents to state that the founding fathers had a desire to create christian nation?

You didn't answer the question: Why not further than 10 years?

I've answered it twice already. What part of Yes, It was founded on the principle that no one religion is the right one", do you not understand?

Because you are not answering the question if it was founded on religion.

tell you what?

The time frame you want to use.

[joobz]

It is not possible to gauge that influence you are talking about.
this is drifted from my original point.


You didn't answer the question: Why not further than 10 years?
You didn't answer my question. Do you have information to counter my claim?



Because you are not answering the question if it was founded on religion.

asked and answered.

The time frame you want to use.
What time frame do you want to use?

[CFLarsen]

this is drifted from my original point.

Quite possibly.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have information to counter my claim?

I asked first: Why the 10 year time frame?

asked and answered.

I'm sorry, but you have only said that the US wasn't founded on a specific religion (Christianity). You haven't answered if it was founded on religion.

What time frame do you want to use?

That's what I am asking you. You were the one introducing one.

[joobz]

I asked first: Why the 10 year time frame?The time frame I'm considering is why the initial founders of the country still had political power/control.



I'm sorry, but you have only said that the US wasn't founded on a specific religion (Christianity). You haven't answered if it was founded on religion. again. It was not founded upon any single religion. It allows for people to hold to whatever belief they wish, but it contains no text requiring such beliefs. You can state that such a foundation IS based upon religion. But not in the positive sense. It is based upon the knoweldge that religion isn't meant for government.



That's what I am asking you. You were the one introducing one.
what did I introduce?

[kmortis]

Oversimplification? Even paranoia? How so?

Or would you rather stop here?
I'll give it one more round. Just call me Mr. Quiote, thankyouverymuch.

Oversimplification.

If you think pointing out that the US was founded on strong religious sentiments, and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state
The US wasn't founded on "strong religious sentiments". It was, in part, founded to insulate the Government from "strong religious sentiments". Actually, it was more part of the overall theme of avoiding entanglements. To follow a religion means, at least to a Western way of thinking, pledging feality to a higher being of some sort. This means that the government may not always hold its citizens' best interests in "mind".

Did the US FFs intend that everone who held public office be agnostic or atheist? No. No religious test, at all, is permissible by the US Constitution (or the preceding Articles of Confederation). This tells me that religion is not to be a litmus test, of any kind, for choosing political office holders. Granted, it's unreasonable to assume that voters wouldn't take the religon of the office-seeker in mind when they go to vote, but it should not be a de facto disqualifier.

Even today, there is no Official Religion of These United States. Faith-Based or no Faith Based. There is a predominant one. And it's the same, titualrly, that existed in 1782, that is Christianity. Let's face it, at the end of his life, Johnny Adams was concerned that Thomas Jefferson wasn't "right with God" and kept pestering TJ to accept Calvinism. Johnny was a Deist, earlier on, yet from Jefferson's writing you get the distinct impression that Adams had converted. We've had Episcopal (Anglican), Unitarian, Methodist and Quaker (did you know that Nixon was the US's last Quaker Prez?) presidents. Hell, even a Catholic snuck in for about three years. Would it be nice to get more diversity, yes. Should that be the only deciding factor? No.

I said "oversimplification" becase this whole argument is a very complex interleaf of philosophy, history and religion. No single sentence could satifactorally sum up all the factors that went into the foundation of the US, with the possible exception of the use of the word "kluge". you tried to distill it down to a soundbite, and it just doesn't work like that.

Paranoia:
and that US government is blurring the lines between church and state, is "potstirring", then you can sleep well at night.

Nothing will harm you. Your government protects you. Really.

Nowhere did I state that the government was to be trusted implictly. So your implication that I'm pollyanna-ing this topic is unfounded.

[CFLarsen]

The time frame I'm considering is why the initial founders of the country still had political power/control.

A lot of things happened politically in those 10 years. How can you say they still had political power/control?

[/I] again. It was not founded upon any single religion. It allows for people to hold to whatever belief they wish, but it contains no text requiring such beliefs. You can state that such a foundation IS based upon religion. But not in the positive sense. It is based upon the knoweldge that religion isn't meant for government.

You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no.

what did I introduce?

A time frame.

I'll give it one more round. Just call me Mr. Quiote, thankyouverymuch.

Oversimplification.


The US wasn't founded on "strong religious sentiments". It was, in part, founded to insulate the Government from "strong religious sentiments". Actually, it was more part of the overall theme of avoiding entanglements. To follow a religion means, at least to a Western way of thinking, pledging feality to a higher being of some sort. This means that the government may not always hold its citizens' best interests in "mind".

Did the US FFs intend that everone who held public office be agnostic or atheist? No. No religious test, at all, is permissible by the US Constitution (or the preceding Articles of Confederation). This tells me that religion is not to be a litmus test, of any kind, for choosing political office holders. Granted, it's unreasonable to assume that voters wouldn't take the religon of the office-seeker in mind when they go to vote, but it should not be a de facto disqualifier.

Even today, there is no Official Religion of These United States. Faith-Based or no Faith Based. There is a predominant one. And it's the same, titualrly, that existed in 1782, that is Christianity. Let's face it, at the end of his life, Johnny Adams was concerned that Thomas Jefferson wasn't "right with God" and kept pestering TJ to accept Calvinism. Johnny was a Deist, earlier on, yet from Jefferson's writing you get the distinct impression that Adams had converted. We've had Episcopal (Anglican), Unitarian, Methodist and Quaker (did you know that Nixon was the US's last Quaker Prez?) presidents. Hell, even a Catholic snuck in for about three years. Would it be nice to get more diversity, yes. Should that be the only deciding factor? No.

Oh, yes. You gave the answer yourself, by listing the various presidents. If there is one deciding factor when it comes to electing a president, it is his stance on religion. Atheists simply don't get elected. Heck, they can hardly get elected for anything.

I said "oversimplification" becase this whole argument is a very complex interleaf of philosophy, history and religion. No single sentence could satifactorally sum up all the factors that went into the foundation of the US, with the possible exception of the use of the word "kluge". you tried to distill it down to a soundbite, and it just doesn't work like that.

Where did I say anything about religion being the only factor?

Paranoia:

Nowhere did I state that the government was to be trusted implictly. So your implication that I'm pollyanna-ing this topic is unfounded.

Your lack of concern, especially in the face of the harsh reality, speaks for itself.

[joobz]

A lot of things happened politically in those 10 years. How can you say they still had political power/control? WHy do you think they weren't?


You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no. WHy do you feel that I haven't answered the question?



A time frame.
A time frame for what?

[CFLarsen]

WHy do you think they weren't?


WHy do you feel that I haven't answered the question?


A time frame for what?

B'bye.

[joobz]

B'bye.
Now you know how I felt about your questions.

[BrianSI]

You still won't answer the question if it was founded on religion.

Just yes or no.


Why does "Nature's God" = religion to you? Is science now a religion? "Nature's God" refers to the physical forces / laws in the universe. Do you deny there are physical forces / laws in the universe that led to the creation of life on earth with a conscience?

[brodski]

The difference (from other social conventions, institutions, or even laws) being that we aren't really beholden to christianity unless we wish to be. Most of us can choose to ignore it without legal or social sanction. We don't even have to pay lip service to it. What qualitative difference does the UK being a "christian state" make to my everyday life as an atheist? Or even my neighbours as a Muslim?

Outside of state education and some minor aspects of the legislative process and the date of certain bank holidays, none. Much like the fact that we are a monarchy has little to no impact on anyone's day to day lives (members of the Royal family aside). We are still a monarchy though.

[CFLarsen]

Why does "Nature's God" = religion to you? Is science now a religion? "Nature's God" refers to the physical forces / laws in the universe. Do you deny there are physical forces / laws in the universe that led to the creation of life on earth with a conscience?

Of course not. How do you know that "Nature's God" meant science?

[joobz]

Of course not. How do you know that "Nature's God" meant science?
How do you know it's not?
your desire to have some concrete answer to this misses the point entirely. Specifics were never introduced in the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This is as far from a basing a country on a specific religion as you can get.

[Big Les]

Outside of state education and some minor aspects of the legislative process and the date of certain bank holidays, none. Much like the fact that we are a monarchy has little to no impact on anyone's day to day lives (members of the Royal family aside). We are still a monarchy though.

Agreed. In fact, in my original post I drew a direct comparison with the monarchy as another anachronistic inheritance. But I didn't want to get mobbed (or worse yet, de-bagged) by royalists :)

I suppose my point (in a roundabout way) was that for this reason I don't object to the UK (and by analogy the US, though it's not my place to do so) being called a "christian country". But I think it's valid to challenge the assertion that either country is (and especially, was founded as) a "christian country" in light of attempts by the hardline christians to misrepresent history for their own ends. As long as "we" (atheists) don't go so far as to rewrite it ourselves of course.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.


Butbutbut, Dr. James Kennedy says that we're a Christian Nationtm. That means that anything we do is ok. See? Therefore, it's not piracy or privateering, it's...it's...it's..it's being a good steward. Just like what's commanded in Genesis.


Well then you all ought to tell Christopher Hitchens to stop calling it piracy.

And I have a feeling that the million European and Americans sold into slavery would have preferred the word piracy.


From the article "Jefferson's Quran" by Christopher Hitchens:

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli...


http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/

[Ducky]

DOC, you do realize you made kmortis' point for him, right?

[Cleon]

Well then you all ought to tell Christopher Hitchens to stop calling it piracy.

And I have a feeling that the million European and Americans sold into slavery would have preferred the word piracy.

You keep having these "feelings."

Your "feelings" are not reality. Cope.


From the article "Jefferson's Quran" by Christopher Hitchens:

Hitchens is not a historian. He's a demagogue who's been making a name for himself by going on anti-Islam rants.



You don't get to pick and choose which treaties are Law and which to dismiss based on how well they back up your point of view, DOC.

[Foster Zygote]

Well then you all ought to tell Christopher Hitchens to stop calling it piracy.
If I meet him I'll bring it up.

And I have a feeling that the million European and Americans sold into slavery would have preferred the word piracy.
What of the American merchant seamen abducted by Royal Navy captains and impressed (forced to serve) on British vessels? Do you object to treaties signed with Great Britain because the individual victims of privateering likely didn't much care about the distinction? Or is your objection based more on religious concerns.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
Yes. And I've noticed that he still ignores the fact that state-sponsored piracy is called privateering and that all contemporary maritime powers practiced it, including the United States.

Well then you all ought to tell Christopher Hitchens to stop calling it piracy.

And I have a feeling that the million European and Americans sold into slavery would have preferred the word piracy.


From the article "Jefferson's Quran" by Christopher Hitchens:

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli...
http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/
Well, this is rather amusing. Let's pretend for now that Hitchens is accurate on his analysis of the treaty.*
shall we continue the quote
negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "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 Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute.
Which proves my point. The united states is secular

Also, further down that publication
Hitchen's has a few more words to add on the subject of Jefferson as a christian.
But then, he avoided public comment on faith whenever possible. It was not until long after his death that we became able to read most of his scornful writings on revelation and redemption (recently cited with great clarity by Brooke Allen in her book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752/)). And it was not until long after his death that The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was publishable. Sometimes known as "the Jefferson Bible" for short, this consists of the four gospels of the New Testament as redacted by our third president with (literally) a razor blade in his hand. With this blade, he excised every verse dealing with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and other puerile superstition, thus leaving him (and us) with a very much shorter book. In 1904 (those were the days), the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body. Here's a tradition worth reviving: Why not ask all new members of Congress to swear on that?

Doesn't seem like Jefferson was really a christian afterall. This must mean your entire claim of Jefferson's christianity was wrong. Will you admit as such?

*Please note that history shows that we had won the war by force of naval power. The treaty was in no way written by demand of muslim rulers. It was written to clarify to any nation that we were not a christian nation so any attempt to treat us as such is false. So you are left two believe either one of two things.
a.) Our fore fathers truly felt that the US was secular, and wished to make this clear to all nations in an effort to avoid any future religious wars.
b.) Our fore fathers were weak willed, easily broken, unhonorable men who would hide and lie about the united states being a christian nation to cater to other nations. Even though, they fought tooth and nail against the british to gain control of thier lands.

[kmortis]

DOC, you do realize you made kmortis' point for him, right?

Fundamentalism, meet parody. Parody, fundamentalism.




Oh, you've met?

[JoeEllison]

You don't get to pick and choose which treaties are Law and which to dismiss based on how well they back up your point of view, DOC.

Think about how much someone like that must hate America, that they would reject our laws in order to spread their stupid little lies. Of course, in the delusional mind of the Liars for Jesus, they DO get to pick and choose which laws count, even if their positions contradict each other. If a treaty makes their point, it counts. If a treaty doesn't, they say we really don't have to follow the law after all.

[joobz]

Think about how much someone like that must hate America, that they would reject our laws in order to spread their stupid little lies. Of course, in the delusional mind of the Liars for Jesus, they DO get to pick and choose which laws count, even if their positions contradict each other. If a treaty makes their point, it counts. If a treaty doesn't, they say we really don't have to follow the law after all.
Thankfully, the reverse isn't true.

Our laws have improved over time as ethics of equality and human rights have developed. Imagine if we actually used the bible as a moral code. We would still allow slavery, allow selling of children into slavery, punish by death anyone who was committed adultry, was homosexual, ate shellfish, insulted bald people, ...