PDA

View Full Version : 94 percent of America's founding era documents mention the Bible


Pages : [1] 2

Angus McPresley
14th September 2007, 03:32 AM
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
14th September 2007, 03:40 AM
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
14th September 2007, 03:58 AM
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
14th September 2007, 05:12 AM
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
14th September 2007, 05:23 AM
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
14th September 2007, 06:04 AM
Isn't "suck it, Jesus" a mention of the Bible, too?

JoeEllison
14th September 2007, 06:08 AM
Political Christians are both stupid and dishonest. That goes double for the ones on Fox "News".

KingMerv00
14th September 2007, 06:46 AM
Isn't the Constitution the only one the really really really matters?

Are they referring to State founding documents maybe?

hgc
14th September 2007, 06:53 AM
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
14th September 2007, 06:53 AM
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
14th September 2007, 08:02 AM
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
14th September 2007, 08:14 AM
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
14th September 2007, 08:38 AM
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
14th September 2007, 08:54 AM
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
14th September 2007, 09:18 AM
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
14th September 2007, 09:20 AM
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
14th September 2007, 10:08 AM
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
14th September 2007, 10:13 AM
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
14th September 2007, 10:24 AM
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
14th September 2007, 10:49 AM
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
14th September 2007, 11:03 AM
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
14th September 2007, 11:21 AM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1166546ea7a301ca7c.png

:newlol :newlol :newlol

timhau
14th September 2007, 11:32 AM
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
14th September 2007, 12:08 PM
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
14th September 2007, 01:08 PM
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
14th September 2007, 04:23 PM
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
15th September 2007, 04:44 AM
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
15th September 2007, 09:36 AM
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
15th September 2007, 09:54 AM
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
15th September 2007, 04:08 PM
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
15th September 2007, 04:09 PM
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
15th September 2007, 04:12 PM
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
15th September 2007, 04:50 PM
Declaration of Independence: No moention of religion, sans a vague reference to a "creator"

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

JoeEllison
15th September 2007, 05:06 PM
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
15th September 2007, 06:11 PM
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
15th September 2007, 06:20 PM
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
15th September 2007, 06:31 PM
[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
15th September 2007, 06:33 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:40 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:43 PM
No. UK is a christian nation.

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

geni
15th September 2007, 07:46 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:48 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:49 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:52 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:58 PM
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
15th September 2007, 07:58 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:00 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:00 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:04 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:09 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:10 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:10 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:15 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:17 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:19 PM
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
15th September 2007, 08:24 PM
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
15th September 2007, 09:10 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:05 AM
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
16th September 2007, 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
Yeah, instead the Constitution contradicts the Ten Commandments...




Why?

DOC
16th September 2007, 02:52 AM
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
16th September 2007, 03:27 AM
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
16th September 2007, 04:03 AM
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
16th September 2007, 04:04 AM
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
16th September 2007, 04:06 AM
"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
16th September 2007, 06:08 AM
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
16th September 2007, 06:18 AM
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
16th September 2007, 11:28 AM
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
16th September 2007, 11:49 AM
I wonder if DOC will ever get to a deeper point. Like "The United States is officially a Christian nation and therefore..."

joobz
16th September 2007, 12:35 PM
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
16th September 2007, 12:54 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:00 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:06 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:16 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:19 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:25 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:28 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:40 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:42 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:42 PM
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
16th September 2007, 01:47 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:06 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:38 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:43 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:44 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:45 PM
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
16th September 2007, 02:54 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:08 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:11 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:11 PM
Why does DOC ignore post #66, or my pointing of it out? What is he afraid to answer?

joobz
16th September 2007, 03:14 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:16 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:17 PM
Why does DOC ignore post #66, or my pointing of it out? What is he afraid to answer?truth.

DOC
16th September 2007, 03:24 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:31 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:43 PM
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
16th September 2007, 03:50 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:14 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:20 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:21 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:31 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:31 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:34 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:35 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:35 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:36 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:38 PM
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
16th September 2007, 04:40 PM
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
16th September 2007, 05:45 PM
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
16th September 2007, 06:14 PM
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
16th September 2007, 06:17 PM
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
16th September 2007, 06:19 PM
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
16th September 2007, 06:23 PM
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
16th September 2007, 06:26 PM
crazy. ain't it?

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

joobz
16th September 2007, 06:41 PM
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
16th September 2007, 07:01 PM
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
16th September 2007, 11:41 PM
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
16th September 2007, 11:49 PM
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
17th September 2007, 05:09 AM
Bull.

*sigh*

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

kmortis
17th September 2007, 06:09 AM
*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
17th September 2007, 06:14 AM
*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
17th September 2007, 06:21 AM
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
17th September 2007, 06:28 AM
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
17th September 2007, 06:39 AM
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
17th September 2007, 06:52 AM
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
17th September 2007, 07:01 AM
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
17th September 2007, 07:08 AM
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
17th September 2007, 07:18 AM
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
17th September 2007, 07:32 AM
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
17th September 2007, 08:03 AM
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
17th September 2007, 08:22 AM
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
17th September 2007, 08:38 AM
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
17th September 2007, 08:48 AM
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
17th September 2007, 09:08 AM
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
17th September 2007, 09:44 AM
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
17th September 2007, 10:19 AM
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
17th September 2007, 10:46 AM
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
17th September 2007, 10:55 AM
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
17th September 2007, 11:06 AM
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
17th September 2007, 11:46 AM
B'bye.
Now you know how I felt about your questions.

BrianSI
17th September 2007, 12:00 PM
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
17th September 2007, 12:13 PM
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
17th September 2007, 12:46 PM
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
17th September 2007, 12:53 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:04 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:12 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:15 PM
DOC, you do realize you made kmortis' point for him, right?

Cleon
17th September 2007, 01:16 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:33 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:39 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:40 PM
DOC, you do realize you made kmortis' point for him, right?

Fundamentalism, meet parody. Parody, fundamentalism.




Oh, you've met?

JoeEllison
17th September 2007, 01:49 PM
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
17th September 2007, 01:56 PM
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, ...

DingoBingo
17th September 2007, 01:56 PM
Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians that rejected the Trinity and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments. They founded the USA on the fact that none of the different sects would ever agree with eachother on how to lead a true Christian life, with the biggest regards to Protestantism. Even Thomas Pain, cited by secular humanists so ardently, believed in a God.

kmortis
17th September 2007, 02:01 PM
Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians that rejected the Trinity and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments. They founded the USA on the fact that none of the different sects would ever agree with eachother on how to lead a true Christian life, with the biggest regards to Protestantism. Even Thomas Pain, cited by secular humanists so ardently, believed in a God.

1) That's a fair assessment
2) It's Paine, not Pain. Although that would be descriptive of how the establishment thought of him.
3) Paine's god was one of his own devising, having little to no relation to the Christian God.

JoeEllison
17th September 2007, 02:02 PM
Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians that rejected the Trinity and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments. They founded the USA on the fact that none of the different sects would ever agree with eachother on how to lead a true Christian life, with the biggest regards to Protestantism. Even Thomas Pain, cited by secular humanists so ardently, believed in a God.

Whether or not your details are true, that's why America's government is secular: because people can't always agree, and it isn't up to the government or "majority rule" to decide for us.

DOC
18th September 2007, 03:19 AM
yes, I am very serious. All of your points (which was what I was referring you) has been clearly refuted. That exhbit { http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html }
is clearly only part of the story. The missing part is all of the ACTUAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS which claim otherwise.

Once again you make false statements. You made many false statements in your "Doc's proof" thread, which I pointed out. You responded to my claim but I still stand by my statement that you made many false statements in there.

Now you make the false statement that all my points have been refuted.

I said many states had official religions. Has that been refuted. I said the New Federal Gov't back then had much less power than our present Federal Gov't. Has that been refuted. I said Jefferson was a frequent church goer (in the Capitol building) for many years as president. Has that been refuted. I brought in the following points made by Dr. James Kennedy (post 31)

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."

Have they all been refuted. Your building a reputation for making false statements. But you don't seem to care, and you continue to make them. It's your credibility! If you don't care about it, I guess we shouldn't either.

Ducky
18th September 2007, 03:42 AM
Once again you make false statements. You made many false statements in your "Doc's proof" thread, which I pointed out. You responded to my claim but I still stand by my statement that you made many false statements in there.

Now you make the false statement that all my points have been refuted.

I said many states had official religions. Has that been refuted. I said the New Federal Gov't back then had much less power than our present Federal Gov't. Has that been refuted. I said Jefferson was a frequent church goer (in the Capitol building) for many years as president. Has that been refuted. I brought in the following points made by Dr. James Kennedy (post 31)

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."

Have they all been refuted. Your building a reputation for making false statements. But you don't seem to care, and you continue to make them. It's your credibility! If you don't care about it, I guess we shouldn't either.

Yes they have, and I posted the link to a post that handles this. You ignored it, yet again:

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

UnrepentantSinner
18th September 2007, 03:51 AM
1. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times.

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

Who cares? Where is the mention in the preamble or articles of the Constitution - where it would matter?
8. Our national anthem mentions God.

The last few words of a rarely sung fourth verse. Again, who cares?
15. God is mentioned all over Washington, D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

You mean those buildings that look like Greek temples?

16. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and of the ten commandments. A total of twenty depictions.

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

I tried to do a Google for this reference. All I got was Bibliospam sites. Maybe someone could dig up the full article and see if there's any merit to the content.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22how+the+bible+made+america%22

joobz
18th September 2007, 05:56 AM
Once again you make false statements. You made many false statements in your "Doc's proof" thread, which I pointed out. You responded to my claim but I still stand by my statement that you made many false statements in there.

DOC, you are repeating the same hypocritical lie when I proved it to be a lie:

I would like to present the case that DOC has knowingly and repeatedly lied in this thread. This is of particular interest because he has knowingly lied when accusing me of stating "falsehoods".

The very title of this thread could be considered a falsehood, so that told me a little what to expect.

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

1)the very title of the forum is false because I never said the facts I give are "Proof of Christianity".

Yes, but somebody new to the forums might read the deceptive title of the thread and be and be influenced by its falsity and then not even bother to go into a thread because of it. That's why there are libel laws on the books.

When Ask why he was posting these thread, his reply was

To inform -- what you do with that information is your business.


However, in another thread, he had argued against my claim of him dodging the "so What" question when it related to Peter. His reply was

So when I talk about Peter being in Rome for a few years and then in post 13

Ducky asks "so what" and I answer

Well Christ did call Peter "the Rock" that he would build his Church on. If the altar of St. Peter's Basilica (maybe the biggest Church in the world) is built directly above the grave of Peter that would be quite a prediction ol' Christ made.
And then you say I didn't answer the question and even state in a forum you put up about me that the question goes unanswered, I really think you "lose credibility". You can't give a more direct answer as to why Peter being in Rome is important. St Peter's Basilica is in Rome in case you didn't know.

Please note the two bolded statements. He admits that his presentation of that was to provides support to the validation of christianity.

As a result, his accusations were completely false. He knowingly posted this information "not to inform" but to support/prove that christianity is valid.

As a result, my original hypothesis in this thread has been validated by DOC himself.
go to the original post for the links of the nested quotes.

You have 3 options here.
1.) tell me why the quoted argument is wrong.(which you can't)
2.) apologize for accusing me of making false statements (which would be the honorable thing to do)
3.) Ignore it entirely and continue to claim that I make false statements. (Which would not only be a lie but a hypocritical lie)

DOC, it is rather crazy to accuse me of making false statements when it is demonstrabably obvious you are lying about it. In your version of morality, is it acceptable to be a hypocritical liar? You had previously stated that we use the word liar very loosely, I disagree. I have refrained from using it until it is obvious when someone lies.

You obviously lie.

Garrette
18th September 2007, 09:49 AM
There have been scattered responses to DOC's list of 19 (and thanks to Ducky for linking to one of my own responses; that happens rarely enough for me to say "woohoo!" when it does).

So I have taken the liberty of creating a consolidated response.

I hold out little hope that this will have any effect on DOC’s behavior or beliefs, but I post it for the benefit of lurkers.

DOC claims that the items on this list:

a. Demonstrate that the US was founded as a Christian nation, and
b. Have not been refuted.

He is wrong on both counts.

A few of the responses are me quoting myself. On some, I have taken links provided by others here to formulate my own response.

None of it is difficult to find with even minimal research.

1. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. No, it does not.

It mentions "God" one time and one time only. It does so in the phrase "nature and nature's God" which is a very deistic turn of phrase and not a christian one.

It also mentions "their Creator", "the Supreme Judge" and "Divine Providence." If you or Kennedy want to argue that these terms are equivalent not only to "God" but to a "Christian God" and further to an indication that the US is founded on the bible, you will need to provide a much more comprehensive argument.



2. The Articles of Confederation mention God. No, they do not.

It uses the phrase "Great Governor of the World." You'll need much more of an argument to demonstrate this means an establishment of christian principles, which, very much to the point, the Articles of Confederation do not address in the slightest. The Articles concern themselves solely with the secular governance of the colonies. That's it.



3. The Constitution is explicitly signed, "in the year of our lord". Now in our schools BC has been changed to BCE. You have got to be kidding. The fact that someone uses the widely accepted conventional dating method is an indication of Christian foundations? If you truly believe this, you are a lost cause.



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." Excellent! You are Anglican, I take it. That phrase, and the long, flowery phrase that follows it is in reference to King George III, "defender of the faith." That's "Anglican" faith.

So your argument is that the United States is an Anglican nation.

drkitten pointed out that this verbiage is a holdover from England's Catholic days so DOC is actually arguing that the US is a Catholic nation.

5. Chaplains have been on the public payroll from the very beginning. This is true. In my opinion, it constitutes the closest to a departure from the idea of separation of church and state by the founders. It is crucial to note, however, that the authority of the chaplaincy is limited to the delivery of prayers. The chaplain has neither voice nor vote in the deliberation of legislation.

If you cannot see the importance of that lack, then you need to seriously look at your biases.


6. The Constitutions of all 50 states mention God in one way or another. Wrong, both in fact and in spirit.

The constitution of Colorado never uses the word God. In the preamble, it mentions “Supreme Ruler of the Universe.” It also uses the word “Lord” twice in reference to a year, i.e., “the Year of Our Lord.”

Iowa’s constitution says “Supreme Being,” followed by a referent “Him,” and “Year of Our Lord.”

Washington’s constitution says “Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

West Virginia’s constitution has no mention at all.

Virginia says “Creator” and uses the word “God” only in the oath of office (“so help you God.”)

Hawaii uses the phrase “Divine Guidance” and uses “God” in the sense insurance companies use it, i.e., “act of God.”

So the claim is factually incorrect. It is incorrect in spirit in that it implies that all the constitutions that use the word God use it in an attempt to create a christian government. In nearly all the constitutions this is transparently untrue. The writers mention God because they acknowledge their personal faith and the faith of the majority of their constituents, but they do so only in the preamble. The substance of the constitutions stay completely away from mentioning God or from stating that the government will operate on Christian principles.

Note that my analysis does not apply universally. Vermont’s constitution has some explicitly Christian language. But Vermont hardly constitutes “all.”



7. The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it. Yes. The verse is Leviticus 25:10 and reads ”Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all inhabitants thereof.”

It was also cast in 1753, well before the Revolutionary War or the Declaration of Independence.

So what?



8. Our national anthem mentions God. Yes. In the fourth, never sung, verse. Do you know when it became the national anthem?

Hint: It was 1931 so it has nothing to do with the founding.



9. Every president has been sworn in on the Bible. Not true.

Franklin Pierce swore on a law book instead of the bible.

John Quincy Adams swore on a law book.

Theodore Roosevelt used no book.

Herbert Hoover used a bible but did not swear on it (he affirmed instead).


More to the point, the constitution makes no mention of the bible when discussing the oath of office. It merely says that the president-elect may choose to swear or to affirm. The text of the oath has no religious words, including “so help me God,” which George Washington added on his own and which most presidents have also included because of the tradition thus established.


10. Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president. Even if true, so what? Presidents do not give up their individual rights or faiths merely by virtue of becoming president. They are allowed to pray. The tolerance written into the constitution is a wonderful thing. You should try practicing it sometime.

But I don't believe you. Try Jefferson and Jackson for exceptions.

And by the way, I imagine I can find quite a few abortions at which prayers were uttered. Are you ready to accept the christian nature of abortion clinics based on that tidbit?


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. The unconstitutional lapses of individual presidents are not an argument for the christian foundation of the nation.

The National Day of Prayer was legislated in 1952, not at the founding of the nation.

It skirts unconstitutionality by not mentioning a specific faith, so if you’re going to use it to argue for a religious nation you have to argue for an Islamic nation, a Jewish nation, and a nation of all faiths that encourage prayer. That sort of includes paganism.


12. Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech. No. Washington’s second address does not mention a deity at all. The word “god” does not appear until Monroe’s second inaugural address in 1821.

Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all referenced a deity, but none of them used the word God, and none of them used the word Christ, and all their references were definitively either deistic or Unitarian in context.


13. Oaths in the courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning. Always? Without fail?


1. I don’t believe you. Prove it.

2. They did not. “So help me God” has never been required at a federal level and rarely required at a state level. The fact that most people use it speaks to their individual faith (and to the strength of societal pressure) and not to the founding of the nation. Some state constitutions require it, but that is not federal, and if you think it desirable for a state constitution to require all witnesses, regardless of faith, to swear on a bible and invoke God, then you are a bigot.


14. The Christmas and thanksgiving holidays are Christian holidays. No. The impetus came from the majority Christian population, but the federal holidays themselves are not Christian, which you can easily tell by researching the intent and the text of the laws.

In regard to Thanksgiving, it’s actually from the Iroquois Thanksgiving which is hardly Christian at all.

Don’t believe me? That’s okay. I doubt you’ll look it up to see that my claim is not without merit.

Thanksgiving as the US practices it had been an unofficial holiday declared by every president beginning with Lincoln in 1863, It only became an official holiday when Franklin Roosevelt wanted to provide extra shopping days for Christmas to the retailers as an aspect of his get-out-of-the-depression agenda.

The federal regulation enumerating federal holidays merely gives the date and the name. It does not prescribe any activity or motivation. It does not even mention the origin or a religion.

The fact that two of the ten federal holidays (eleven in those years with a presidential inauguration) ultimately have religious roots merely points to the fact that the government is practical enough to bow to an oppressive majority.

The fact that Thanksgiving wasn’t regularly observed until 1863 (and not officially law until 1941) and that Christmas was not officially observed until 1870 is proof enough that you cannot use these holidays to demonstrate a christian founding.


15. God is mentioned all over Washington, D.C., on its monuments and buildings. Aside from the fact that the monuments reflect the personal faith of both the person(s) memorialized and the builder(s) of the memorial, and do not demonstrate any official favor of a religion, and aside from the fact that not all monuments have such references (Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s memorial has no religious references at all), you need only bear in mind one of the God references in these memorials:

”I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

That’s from the Jefferson Memorial. It’s a quotation from one of Jefferson’s letters to Benjamin Rush.

You really, really need to examine how that quotation demonstrates that your claims about Jefferson are wrong and your assertions in this thread would rightly draw his criticism.



16. The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and of the ten commandments. A total of twenty depictions. An utter lie. On the outside of the building Moses is represented once, but he is accompanied by Confucius and Solon (a favorite of mine). Moses is given no place of prominence amongst the group.

Inside the building Moses is represented once more, this time holding blank tablets, but he is again in a group (without prominence) including not only Confucius and Solon, but also Mohammed, Hammurabi, and Justinian.

Justinian is also on the outside of the building near a trial scene from the Iliad, a Roman praetor, Julian, and King John, among others.

Let me emphasize the presence of Julian, as in Julian the Apostate. That’s right. The guy who tried to remove Christianity from the empire.

That’s twice for Moses. The ten commandments appear one more time, though. They are in the lower corner of the courtroom door, definitely not in a place of prominence, and without any text on them, merely the roman numerals I through X.

So that is a combined total of three appearances, none of which are prominent, and which are greatly outnumbered by the many other figures also represented.

Did you note Mohammed’s representation? It’s important.



17. Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust".Yes. It was added in the 1950s.

Across from the speaker’s rostrum is a depiction of Moses, too. But there is also a depiction of Hammurabi, and of Solon, and of Mohammed, and of Lycurgus, and of Julian the Apostate, and quite a few others, much like in the Supreme Court building.

Cherry-picking doesn’t work.


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. You are flatly wrong and have demonstrated again that you don’t even read your own sources.

See details below, but here is the summary:

30 documents total.

14 make no mention of god or religion.

2 mention religion only to limit it.

2 mention a supreme being in a Unitarian sense.

3 mentions a deistic supreme being.

1 is by someone not even a part of the government at the time.

6 mention a supreme being only as a nod to his existence but exclude that being from any consideration in the substance of the document.

1 mentions Jews.

Only 1 (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural) can remotely be interpreted as suggesting that the christian god should be a part of decisions in governance.


Here are the individuals items:

The Mayflower Compact: Mentions god several times to indicate religious persuasion but leaves him out of the intent of the document: “convenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.”

Declaration of Independence: No christian god here.

Benjamin Franklin’s Epitaph: No god or religion at all here.

The Treaty of Paris: Discussed above.

George Washington’s Address to Colonel Nicola: No mention of god or religion at all.

Patrick Henry’s Instructions to George Rogers Clark: No mention of god or religion.

The Constitution of the United States: Mentions religion only to limit government’s involvement with it.

The Bill of Rights: Mentions religion to ensure individuals retain freedom of it.

The Northwest Ordinance: No mention of god or religion.

First Inaugural Address of President George Washington: “Almighty Being” “His” “Great Author” “His” Mainly Unitarian in outlook.

Farewell Address of President George Washington: “Allwise dispensor of human blessings”
Creator” Still Unitarian.

First Inaugural Address of President Thomas Jefferson: “overruling Providence” “Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe” I’d say deistic.

The Star Spangled Banner: 6th line (out of 9) in the 4th verse: “In God is our trust.”

Jackson’s Letter Describing the Battle of New Orleans: No mention of god or religion.

The Monroe Doctrine: No mention of god or religion.

The Gettysburg Address: “this nation, under God,”

The Emancipation Proclamation: 3 uses of “A.D.” when indicating year. One “Almighty God.”

Second Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln: “Bible” once; “God” six times; “His” three times; “the Almighty” once; “He” twice; “Him” once; “the Lord” once. Fifteen references. Lincoln was Christian as far as I can tell. But the government was not, and he was not a founder.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: No mention of god or religion.

Robert E. Lee’s Letter Accepting the Presidency of Washington College: No mention of god or religion.

Theodore Roosevelt’s Letter on Cuba: No mention of god or religion.

First Inaugural Address of President Woodrow Wilson: Last sentence: “God helping me…” An expression of individual faith.

The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: No mention of god or religion.

President Franklin Roosevelt “Four Freedoms” Address to Congress: “God” twice. Once at the beginning and once at the end. Nowhere in the substance.

Selection of General Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of Overlord: No mention of god or religion.

McAuliffe’s Christmas Message: No mention of god or religion. And this is in a CHRISTMAS message!

The German Instrument of Surrender WWII: No mention of god or religion.

Instrument of Surrender in the Pacific WWII: No mention of god or religion.

Inaugural Address of President John F. Kennedy: “God” twice; “His” twice. JFK was Catholic. Is the US a Catholic nation?

Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” Speech: “God’s children” three times; “Jews” once; “Gentiles” once; “Protestants” once; “Catholics” once; “Gold Almighty” once. Besides the fact that MLK was not a member of the government and did not set government policy, I suppose you are prepared to claim that the US is a Jewish nation?

Susan B. Anthony’s Fight for Women’s Rights: No original references to god or religion. There is one quotation of the Declaration of Independence including “Creator.”



19. The Bible was the primary textbook in our schools. Children learned their ABC's using Biblical words. Ah. So they didn’t use it to learn religion, just the alphabet. Perhaps because textbooks as such were rare or nonexistent at the founding of the nation and the most common book to be found was the bible?

Perhaps it is relevant that as actual textbooks became available the bible was discarded as a textbook?



Newsweek said some years ago, "Historians are now coming to realize that the Bible , even more than the Constitution, founded the nation of America." Ah, yes. Newsweek. That pillar of rational inquiry and unbiased reporting. Tell me, please, what you think of Newsweek's stance on the Michael Newdow lawsuits?


So, yes, DOC, your entire list has been refuted. “Refuted” meaning that they are shown to factually incorrect (most cases) or shown not to demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate (a few cases).

You have very small ground on which to build a christian edifice.

Ducky
18th September 2007, 10:02 AM
There you go DOC, and thanks to Garrette. Flatly and directly refuted.

kmortis
18th September 2007, 10:04 AM
Garrette,
Sweet. It'll be ignored by the intended target, but we appreciate it. I appreciated it so much, I nominated it.

Cleon
18th September 2007, 10:08 AM
:clap:

Heluva smackdown, Garrette. Well done.

CFLarsen
18th September 2007, 12:07 PM
Let me emphasize the presence of Julian, as in Julian the Apostate. That’s right. The guy who tried to remove Christianity from the empire.

By replacing it with the old Roman religions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_apostate)

Not exactly the poster boy for non-religious government.

pgwenthold
18th September 2007, 12:29 PM
You have got to be kidding. The fact that someone uses the widely accepted conventional dating method is an indication of Christian foundations? If you truly believe this, you are a lost cause.


I believe the Constitution mentions Sunday, too. I guess then it is acknowledging Sol, the Sun god.

And woe be us if it says anything about Wednesday, Thursday, or Saturday.



The constitution of Colorado never uses the word God. In the preamble, it mentions “Supreme Ruler of the Universe.” It also uses the word “Lord” twice in reference to a year, i.e., “the Year of Our Lord.”

Iowa’s constitution says “Supreme Being,” followed by a referent “Him,” and “Year of Our Lord.”

Washington’s constitution says “Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”



When were the constitutions of Colorado, Washington, and Iowa ratified, and what does that have to do with the founding of the country? Iowa became a state in the 1840s, I think.

Garrette
18th September 2007, 12:58 PM
By replacing it with the old Roman religions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_apostate)

Not exactly the poster boy for non-religious government.If you want to make the broader case that the US government is founded on a broad definition of religion (I know you have argued something along these lines), have at it. Not sure how involved I'll get with it.

DOC's contention is far more specific in that he claims a decidedly christian founding of the US.

In either case--DOC's specific claim or your general claim--Julian makes no poster boy at all. In context, he makes a portion of a poster for the rule of law and not of man or god.

Garrette
18th September 2007, 01:00 PM
I believe the Constitution mentions Sunday, too. I guess then it is acknowledging Sol, the Sun god.

And woe be us if it says anything about Wednesday, Thursday, or Saturday.Yup.


When were the constitutions of Colorado, Washington, and Iowa ratified, and what does that have to do with the founding of the country? Iowa became a state in the 1840s, I think.[/quote]Good points.


Ducky and Cleon: Thanks.

kmortis: Thanks double, though I'm not sure it's worthy of what I think the TLA is for.

CFLarsen
18th September 2007, 01:10 PM
In context, he makes a portion of a poster for the rule of law and not of man or god.

Nope. In context, he makes for a ruler that would do whatever it took, to promote his own religious views.

Julian the Apostate is quite possibly the worst person you could use as an example of American governmental independency from religion you can think of.

Cleon
18th September 2007, 01:14 PM
Julian the Apostate is quite possibly the worst person you could use as an example of American governmental independency from religion you can think of.

Well, it's a good thing he wasn't trying to do that, then.

Garrette
18th September 2007, 01:16 PM
Nope. In context, he makes for a ruler that would do whatever it took, to promote his own religious views.

Julian the Apostate is quite possibly the worst person you could use as an example of American governmental independency from religion you can think of.Nope. In context, he is the equivalent--on the other end of the spectrum--of Moses. The friezes on the Supreme Court building are depictions of law-givers. Moses was one; the fact that his laws were alleged to be divinely inspired matters not. Julian was one; the fact that he passed anti-Christian laws matters not.

And I'll thank you to not claim arguments I am not making. I am addressing the specific claim of a christian founding. A more general claim of a religious founding is a different matter, and regardless if you agree with my characterization of Julian as regards the general, you cannot in good conscience disagree as regards the specific.

CFLarsen
18th September 2007, 01:32 PM
Nope. In context, he is the equivalent--on the other end of the spectrum--of Moses. The friezes on the Supreme Court building are depictions of law-givers. Moses was one; the fact that his laws were alleged to be divinely inspired matters not. Julian was one; the fact that he passed anti-Christian laws matters not.

If anything, Moses was a religious law-maker. That's the whole point of him walking away from his flock, in order to get them away from worshipping the calf-blah-blah-blah.

The laws Moses brought down were dictated directly from (the Christian) God.

And I'll thank you to not claim arguments I am not making. I am addressing the specific claim of a christian founding. A more general claim of a religious founding is a different matter, and regardless if you agree with my characterization of Julian as regards the general, you cannot in good conscience disagree as regards the specific.

If you want to point to Julian the Apostate as a lawmaker, you cannot disregard the reasons why he made the laws he did.

Garrette
18th September 2007, 01:38 PM
If anything, Moses was a religious law-maker. That's the whole point of him walking away from his flock, in order to get them away from worshipping the calf-blah-blah-blah.

The laws Moses brought down were dictated directly from (the Christian) God.That is certainly the mythology, but you are suggesting that one cannot reference X about someone without referencing ante-X.

Whether or not you think this is true, the builders of the Supreme Court building did not, and the proof is in the building itself. They would hardly use Solon or Lycurgus if religious law-giving were the intent.


If you want to point to Julian the Apostate as a lawmaker, you cannot disregard the reasons why he made the laws he did.Yes, I can. More to the point, the builders of the Supreme Court building could.

The fact that you cannot is of no relevance.

Foster Zygote
18th September 2007, 06:17 PM
Garrette,
Sweet. It'll be ignored by the intended target, but we appreciate it. I appreciated it so much, I nominated it.

Had you not, I would have done so.

CFLarsen
18th September 2007, 11:11 PM
That is certainly the mythology, but you are suggesting that one cannot reference X about someone without referencing ante-X.

Whether or not you think this is true, the builders of the Supreme Court building did not, and the proof is in the building itself. They would hardly use Solon or Lycurgus if religious law-giving were the intent.

Yes, I can. More to the point, the builders of the Supreme Court building could.

The fact that you cannot is of no relevance.

It looks to me like it has more to do with the inability to separate law-making from religiously-induced law-making.

quixotecoyote
18th September 2007, 11:49 PM
Replace 'inability to' with 'irrelevance of' and you'll be so close....

All that's left will be the conjugation.

joobz
19th September 2007, 05:54 AM
It looks to me like it has more to do with the inability to separate law-making from religiously-induced law-making.Why do you think this distinction is relavent to anything that has been debated in this thread?

Garrette
19th September 2007, 06:29 AM
It looks to me like it has more to do with the inability to separate law-making from religiously-induced law-making.

Let’s look at this group (the south wall frieze):

Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian. Add to this four allegorical figures representing Fame, Authority, Light of Wisdom, and History.

And this group (the north wall frieze):

Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, Napoleon. Add the allegorical figures, Liberty and Peace, Right of Man, Equity, and Philosophy.


You are saying that the context is religious law-giving. I am saying you are self-evidently wrong, and the context is simply law-giving.

If you still don’t believe me, go here (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf) to read the description on the Information Sheet about the Supreme Court building from the Office of the Curator. I will quote the beginning paragraph of that Information Sheet:
Cass Gilbert (1867-1934), architect of the Supreme Court Building, selected Adolph A. Weinman (1870-1952), a respected and accomplished Beaux-Arts sculptor, to design the marble friezes for the Courtroom. Weinman’s training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building. Gilbert relied on him to choose the subject and the figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court Building. Faithful to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, Weinman designed a progression of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law. Each frieze in the courtroom measures 40 feet long by 7 feet, 2 inches high and is made of ivory vein Spanish marble.Bolding is mine. It is clear the intent and the context is “lawgivers” and not “religious lawgivers.” Significantly, the bolded portion makes it clear that regardless of the intent, the figures to be presented was left entirely to the artist and did not reflect any official position of the US government.


Now move to the bronze entry doors in the west side. Here are the scenes depicting the development of law (from this site (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Zbox5lMcaNMJ:www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf+%2B%22Supreme+Court+building%22+ %2BJulian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)):

the trial scene from the shield of Achilles, as described in the Iliad; a Roman praetor publishing an edict; Julian and a pupil; Justinian publishing the Corpus Juris; King John sealing the Magna Carta; the Chancellor publishing the first Statute of Westminster; Lord Coke barring King James from sitting as a Judge; and Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story.Tell me that the context is religious law, and I will tell you you are full of it.


Finally, I give you this, quoted from this site (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8b.htm):
The Supreme Court Building Commission, like most building commissions of the 1930s, did not question what figures or symbols were to be used as embellishments. They understood that the architect had authority in this matter, with the architect usually deferring to the sculptor himself. Such was the case with Cass Gilbert and the embellishments on the Supreme Court building (Descriptions of the Friezes in the Courtroom of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the East and West Pediments of the Building Exterior, p. 1).

DOC is wrong, Claus, about christianity being the foundation of the US. You are wrong about your more general claim of the US being founded on religion. You are clearly, flatly, undeniably wrong about the context of the art on the Supreme Court building.

I admit, as I think others here admit, that religion in general and christianity in particular of course influenced the development and founding of the US, but that is a far cry from your claim.

And that’s the last I’ll engage in this discussion with you.

Garrette
19th September 2007, 08:27 AM
DOC,

This may be a fruitless post, but I feel compelled to write it. I suspect you will not really read my response to your list of 19, and I suspect that the reason you will not do so is because you take comfort in your faith.

What you are missing, DOC, is the ability to take even stronger comfort in your faith. Nothing (or little) in this thread, or in the other threads you have started, is an attack on your faith. Nothing in my refutation of your list disproves Christianity; it only refutes your assertion about the US being founded as a Christian nation. There is a huge difference that I truly hope you can bring yourself to see.

You have made it clear that you base your faith on people like James Kennedy and—through Kennedy—David Barton. That’s understandable if you were introduced to them at a young age and told by people you trust that Kennedy and Barton are also trustworthy.

They are not, DOC. Kennedy was a liar. I will not give him the leeway of assuming he might have been a sincere believer; his education was too high to excuse the manner in which he frequently and egregiously misrepresented and lied about facts he did not like. Kennedy lied repeatedly. So did Barton.

The people you found out about through Kennedy and Barton, people like Jay Sekulow, are no better. They do not present the facts either fully or truthfully.

But it doesn’t matter, DOC. It shouldn’t matter. Your faith is not supposed to be in Kennedy or Barton or Sekulow. Your faith is supposed to be in your God and your Lord and your Christ. Keep that faith if you like; we haven’t proven you wrong in that sense. But keep it by choosing not to listen to liars or to spread the lies.

You have a choice. You can be a terrible example of Christians by clinging to what has been repeatedly demonstrated to be lies and misrepresentations, or you can be a fine example and abandon the lies and base your faith on something else. Something else that you now know you will need to research.

It’s a very difficult choice. I know because I made a series of similar choices, and I can think of little that was more difficult. But it is still a choice. It is your choice. An honest faith or a faith knowingly based on lies.

Best wishes with it.

Biscuit
19th September 2007, 09:01 AM
"And by the way, I imagine I can find quite a few abortions at which prayers were uttered. Are you ready to accept the christian nature of abortion clinics based on that tidbit?"

Well put! Great points all around in that post. I feel smarter for having read it!

fanboy
19th September 2007, 10:11 AM
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, the US Constitution makes one more, earlier, reference to religion, Article VI. Article VI has three paragraphs: the first deals with debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation (we still owe people the money), but the last two state:


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The last paragraph says it all: "no religious shall ever be required..." When read in conjunction with the begining of the paragraph, it's clear that the scope of the prohibition includes the states. I contend that if Federalists had wanted to support official state religions, they would not have specifically prohibited states from requiring religious tests.

What's really fascinating to me is that this is in the main body of the Constitution itself. So the states, even those with official state religions, had to have known of its existence at the time of ratification. By contrast, the Bill of Rights was part of the deal with anti-Federalists. It was a reaction to the debates over ratification.

Oh, I looked-up which states had official state religions at the time of ratification. Here's the list:


Date
State Church Disestablished
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England 1789
Massachusetts Congregational 1780
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
North Carolina Church of England 1776
South Carolina Church of England 1790
Virginia Church of England 1786


According to my source, the Wikipedia entry on State Religion, those states that have disestablishment dates prior to ratification still, technically, continued to require some kind of religion. For example Wikipedia says that "until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required members of the State legislature to be of the Protestant religion."

This was very illuminating. I had always thought that "Official State Religion" in regards to the US meant that some states had, for example, made Baptist an official state religion. Instead it looks like most states that had official religions, the religion was the Church of England. The head of the Church of England, as you may remember from history class, or even an earlier post in this thread, is the the current King or Queen of England.

So, out of 13 original colonies, four simply inherited the religion of the country they just won independence from. Three had the denomination "Congregational" which simply meant that people had to belong to a church.

So yes, states had official religions. But no, the new federal government under the Constitution wasn't afraid of trampling on their state religions. Near as we can tell from the ratification debates, the states didn't seem to really care.

joobz
20th September 2007, 06:53 AM
Very nice summary Fanboy.

To Garrette,
If you followed the "Doc's proof.." thread, I think I know why he needs his lies to be true. He does use these little "facts" as proof (or support) of the validity of christianity. Every time we explain that he is wrong, which you did quite nicely on Doc's List of 19, it seems Doc views this as an attack against his faith. Mainly because he has tried to butress his faith with them.

But you are exactly correct in stating that it shouldn't/doesn't matter. That none of our arguments are against his faith or religion. It is against his desire to missrepresent history. It is against his desire to confuse the reality of theocracies.

I hope that he will respond to your arguments. It would require a change in character for him, but I am always hoping people will change for the better.

Hardenbergh
20th September 2007, 07:50 AM
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:


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

I just read something about the First Amendment and it makes more sense than anything that I've read yet.


When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

In the current debate over the separation of church and state, the choices sometimes lean too extreme on both sides. At one extreme are those who want to use the State as a vehicle to enforce their brand of Christian ideas on everyone. At the other extreme are those who say the Founding Fathers would have wanted a situation where one can't mention God in any publicly sponsored forum, for fear of having the State appear to support religion. Somehow, between alternating volleys of quotations from devout Founding Fathers and anti-clerical quotations from Tom Paine, we've got to find a better approach.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

Garrette
20th September 2007, 08:09 AM
I just read something about the First Amendment and it makes more sense than anything that I've read yet.




http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html There are some decent bits in that quotation but nothing that has not already been said repeatedly on this thread, and others. But the post argues mainly against a straw man. It mentions the extremes on both sides of the debate but argues as if the non-christians all adopt the extreme.

There is no mass movement to bar people from practicing the religion they choose. There is no mass movement to prohibit the mention of god or religion in public. There is no mass movement to prohibit politicians from praying or mentioning god in office. There is a movement to enforce the 1st amendment as written, to stop and prohibit governmental practices that either establish or favor any religion.

Children can pray in schools. Children can read their own bibles in schools. God can be mentioned in schools. What cannot be done is proselytizing in schools, passing religious-based legislation, favoring the religious over the non-religious (or the religious of one sect over the religious of another), and using governmental facilities for propogating religious beliefs.

There are far clearer explanations of this than the site you quoted.

Hardenbergh
20th September 2007, 08:46 AM
Has anyone read Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger (Harvard University Press, 2002)?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674007344

Garrette
20th September 2007, 08:50 AM
Has anyone read Separation of Church and State by Philip Hamburger (Harvard University Press, 2002)?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674007344 Have you? Please tell us what you think the cogent arguments are.

Have you read the posts in this thread? And in the Thomas Jefferson thread started by DOC?

Hardenbergh
20th September 2007, 09:01 AM
Have you? Please tell us what you think the cogent arguments are.

Have you read the posts in this thread? And in the Thomas Jefferson thread started by DOC?

I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.

The Concept of "Separation" As The Product of Later History, Not the Founding

Hamburger contends, then, that "separation" is a constitutional norm that has evolved out of a series of culture clashes over the years. The simple belief that "separation" has a pure constitutional pedigree is inaccurate.

Instead, Hamburger argues, the concepts embodied by the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses eventually transformed, over time, into the concept of "separation." The "separation" of church and state, far from being an idea fixed at the founding, has had an evolving set of meanings.

Moreover, these meanings did not derive from constitutional exegesis alone, according to Hamburger. Rather, they have grown out of pointed culture clashes between dominant and minority religions.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html

joobz
20th September 2007, 09:21 AM
I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.



http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html
What's your point?
Jefferson coined the term "wall of seperation" which to me indicates that the founders had at least some form of that idea while framing the constitution. I have no doubt that the idea has evolved since then. I'm certain it evolved since then, but so what?

That seperation is the easiest way to avoid issues of which religion is favored.

Why should it be christian instead of muslim?
Why should it be protestant intead of roman catholic?
How much do we allow each of the religion's rules dictate legislation? why favor one set of religious rules over another? What does it mean to be in the religious minority?

The wall is there for a reason. If it has been strengthened over time by use, why is that bad?

Garrette
20th September 2007, 09:34 AM
I've been following along to some degree. I haven't read every post. Understandable; it's a long thread. But you might do a bit more research before expecting everyone else to restate what has already been repeatedly stated.

I haven't read the book. I just found it today. In this overview of the book, it is said that the author points out that the concept of separation of church and state was something that evolved throughout history.I usually read reviews as a launching point from which to decide whether or not to buy a book, so no problems there. But I do not rely upon reviews to conclude that the books points are valid or invalid when I haven't seen the book myself.

That said, I think you will find very few people disagreeing that the concept of separation has evolved. Many things have evolved. The place of African-Americans in US society has evolved. The rights of women have evolved.

The difference is that on the separation issue, we have clear evidence directly from one of the primary founders that separation was an original intent.

We have no such evidence regarding African-Americans or women's rights.

pgwenthold
20th September 2007, 11:36 AM
I don't understand. If the founders actually meant the first amendment to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, why didn't they say "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion, or the free exercise thereog" instead of their language, "...respecting the establishment of religion..."

Two big differences:
1) "respecting the establishment of...": so the law doesn't have to actually establish a state religion to be prohibited
2) "establishment of religion...": not _A_ religion, but just religion in general. This preserves the "freedom FROM religion" right, in addition to the freedom of religion, which is protected in the next part.

The wording is very clear that it does more than just say "There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states." Do people really think that is unintentional?

DOC
20th September 2007, 03:03 PM
I brought in the following points made by Dr. James Kennedy (post 31)

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."

Have they all been refuted. Your {joobz} building a reputation for making false statements. But you don't seem to care, and you continue to make them. It's your credibility! If you don't care about it, I guess we shouldn't either.




Yes they have, and I posted the link to a post that handles this. You ignored it, yet again:

Originally Posted by Ducky View Post
This post 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?


Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.

Cleon
20th September 2007, 03:53 PM
Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.

Wow. Talk about projection.

Ducky
20th September 2007, 04:24 PM
Your much like joobz in that you love to use the word "all" when the word "some of" is more in line with the truth. One can also say the same about your love affair with the word "totally".

Now, when Garrette responds to 6 of the 19 points I brought in -- that is not dealing with "all" this BS (as you call it). Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them. You lose credibility when you consistently tell falsehoods like this.

I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.

Did you miss not only the post I linked to, but this one by Garrette? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2975614#post2975614)

No response? Just some crap about credibility?

Ho hum.

Thanks for playing, DOC. You lose.

joobz
20th September 2007, 04:42 PM
I know you and joobz will continue to do this in the future, but this stuff adds up over time, and eventually any statements you make will become almost meaningless.
You are correct. reputation does build on itself.

Goodluck with that fact.*




*I'm calling you a delusional liar.

UnrepentantSinner
20th September 2007, 04:59 PM
Also responding to 6 of 19 points are not "totally rebuking" them.

Yes, but completely debunking them or showing them not to support Kennedy's your contention is a total rebuke.

You really need to get an irony meter DOC.

kmortis
20th September 2007, 05:11 PM
Can we stop playing with the troll now? He's done.

Doc Daneeka
20th September 2007, 05:27 PM
That’s twice for Moses. The ten commandments appear one more time, though. They are in the lower corner of the courtroom door, definitely not in a place of prominence, and without any text on them, merely the roman numerals I through X.


I have been told that those represent the bill of rights. I can't seem to find a good source for either point of view, however.

[edit] Snopes has a source that shows that it does indeed represent the bill of rights. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

DOC
21st September 2007, 03:07 AM
Did you miss not only the post I linked to, but this one by Garrette? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2975614#post2975614)


I must have missed this 2nd post by Garrette. I only read the other one you mentioned. But I hope everyone reads the info (and opinions) in it, and researches it, because there are almost no sources. But even if everything is true it doesn't refute all the points made by Kennedy. And for anyone to make a statement that it refutes "all" the points Kennedy mentioned is simply wishful thinking of overly biased atheists. I'll be happy if people read Kennedy's points and then read Garrette's post and researches it. Then you can make up your own mind on the Christian foundations of America.

And while your at it you can read this info that comes from the Library of Congress website to help you make up your mind on the religious foundations of America.

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

Ducky
21st September 2007, 03:08 AM
DOC why do you repeatedly ignore where I have linked to my response on that LOC display?

DOC
21st September 2007, 03:29 AM
DOC claims that the items on this {Kennedy's} list:

a. Demonstrate that the US was founded as a Christian nation


This is a false statement. The nation has Christian foundations but I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation. So the original premise of your responses to Kennedy's points is incorrect.

Ducky
21st September 2007, 03:37 AM
This is a false statement. The nation has Christian foundations but I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation. So the original premise of your responses to Kennedy's points is incorrect.

You're equivocating your attempt at wordplay on your stance with D. James Kennedy's position. Kennedy clearly thinks this was a christian nation, founded by christians, so your criticism is irrelevant.

Kennedy's own words, from his book "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul (written with Jim Nelson Black):"

"But the fact is, the United States of America was conceived and brought forth by Christians, and history tells us that story in no uncertain terms....Anyone who reads about the values upon which this nation was founded understands perfectly well that this was, from the start, a Christian nation." (p. 71)

So the responses Garrette gave were in fact, on target.

Why do you not respond to my criticism of the LOC display, and why have you never addressed my points on your misrepresentation of the Trinity Decision?

UnrepentantSinner
21st September 2007, 03:54 AM
DOC why do you repeatedly ignore where I have linked to my response on that LOC display?

Because it's easier to keep reposting lists and links to sources that have already been debunked than it is to try and address the reasons they were debunked.

Just like it's easier to keep claiming that no one showed Sekulow was, at the very least, misasserting facts during his Congressional testimony than it is to show how the sources showing he was wrong are themselves suspect.

Typical MO of someone who cannot support his position/assertions.

Garrette
21st September 2007, 05:10 AM
I must have missed this 2nd post by Garrette. I only read the other one you mentioned. But I hope everyone reads the info (and opinions) in it, and researches it, because there are almost no sources.I hope they do to. I hope it mostly for you.


But even if everything is true it doesn't refute all the points made by Kennedy.Yes, it does.

It shows that most of them are factually incorrect; in other words, they are lies.

It shows that the remainder of them do not support the overall contention.


And for anyone to make a statement that it refutes "all" the points Kennedy mentioned is simply wishful thinking of overly biased atheists. I'll be happy if people read Kennedy's points and then read Garrette's post and researches it.So will I.



Now, DOC, please compare this statement of yours:

Then you can make up your own mind on the Christian foundations of America.

And this one:

The nation has Christian foundations

To this one, which is the remainder of the previous sentence:

but I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation.

You say quite clearly that America has Christian foundations and that the nation has Christian foundations, but then you say you never said the US was founded as a Christian nation.

What in the heck are you playing at?

Garrette
21st September 2007, 05:11 AM
So the original premise of your responses to Kennedy's points is incorrect.No, it's not. You're playing word games.

I don't post for your benefit anymore, DOC, but for the benefit of those who might be lurking in this thread. It is quite obvious who is twisting words, misrepresenting facts, and lying.

It ain't me, Ducky, Cleon, or the others.

Garrette
21st September 2007, 05:40 AM
One more comment about my rebuttal not being sourced: It has as many sources cited as does the original list. Actually more, because I don't just say "The Freedom Shrine," I cite the individual documents listed on the Freedom Shrine. And I used the Freedom Shrine site's electronic versions of those documents.

That's one of the egregious examples of out and out lying. You (Kennedy?) said that most of those documents mention God in one way or another when in fact less than half mention a deity or religion at all, and nearly all the remainder don't use the word God.

Follow on comments add more sources in reference to the Supreme Court building. (Belated thanks to Doc Daneeka for adding even more info to that; info which reduce Moses/Ten Commandment depictions on the Supreme Court building from three to two).

joobz
21st September 2007, 06:44 AM
But even if everything is true it doesn't refute all the points made by Kennedy.

:dl:

Oh, that's a good one. Even if all of garette's clearly explained point for point critique of the 19 items are true, Kennedy is still right? Can you see how incredibly delusional one has to be to actually believe that?



And for anyone to make a statement that it refutes "all" the points Kennedy mentioned is simply wishful thinking of overly biased atheists.It refutes the 19 points you listed. No one has claimed to have heard all of Kennedy's points. But so far, he's proven to be a horrible source of information.

I'll be happy if people read Kennedy's points and then read Garrette's post and researches it. Then you can make up your own mind on the Christian foundations of America.
Yup. So am I, the more people who know the truth, the less we'll have people like you telling lies.

joobz
21st September 2007, 06:53 AM
No, it's not. You're playing word games.

I don't post for your benefit anymore, DOC, but for the benefit of those who might be lurking in this thread. It is quite obvious who is twisting words, misrepresenting facts, and lying.

It ain't me, Ducky, Cleon, or the others.
This is DOC's classic MO. He will play with context and semantics to avoid admitting error and wrong doing. When I called him out on his motivations with my "proof of christianity thread", he maintained that he wasn't providing proof, merely support. Therefore, he feels justfied to say that my posts are full of false statements.

Oh well, He doesn't have to be a good person or even moral person to receive the freedoms that the great secular nation, The United States, provides him. He is free to believe in any foolish lie he wishes. And I, along with the ACLU, will protect his right to be self-delusional.

Garrette
21st September 2007, 08:46 AM
This is DOC's classic MO. He will play with context and semantics to avoid admitting error and wrong doing. When I called him out on his motivations with my "proof of christianity thread", he maintained that he wasn't providing proof, merely support. Therefore, he feels justfied to say that my posts are full of false statements.

Oh well, He doesn't have to be a good person or even moral person to receive the freedoms that the great secular nation, The United States, provides him. He is free to believe in any foolish lie he wishes. And I, along with the ACLU, will protect his right to be self-delusional.Yeah. I didn't follow that particular thread, but I have seen this same behavior in other threads of his.

One has to wonder what DOC thinks he is accomplishing. He obviously is not swaying any of the people with whom he debates. Does he think that his arguments are swaying the lurkers? He would not only have to convince himself that lying is okay; he would also have to convince himself that he's doing a good job in this debate.

It's delusions all the way down.

DOC
21st September 2007, 11:30 AM
It shows that the remainder of them do not support the overall contention.


"What" is the the contention of the 19 items brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.

kmortis
21st September 2007, 11:33 AM
"What" is the the contention of the list brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.
Nope.

ImaginalDisc
21st September 2007, 11:35 AM
"What" is the the contention of the list brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.

V: "Who? Who is but the form, following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask. "

Evey: "Yes, I can see that."

. . .

Evey: "Are you, like, a crazy person?"

Garrette
21st September 2007, 11:54 AM
"What" is the the contention of the 19 items brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.I'm not interested in your silly games of misdirection.

YOU used that list to support YOUR contention of a Christian founding. I showed the list does not such thing.

Your silly site promotes the same lies that have been repeatedly shown to be lies here. It goes back to Kennedy who goes back to Barton who lies.

You have been given chance after chance after chance after chance on this thread and other threads, and still you insist on repeating lies.

Your chances from me are over. I'll take my own chances with the lurkers here, that they can tell who is being honest and who isn't.

joobz
21st September 2007, 02:54 PM
"What" is the the contention of the 19 items brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.

Who made the contention: A lying coward*
Where does this contention exist: In the lying coward*'s posts

*Consider this a riddle. I'll let everyone try to figure out who the lying coward is.

UnrepentantSinner
21st September 2007, 05:29 PM
Because it's easier to keep reposting lists and links to sources that have already been debunked than it is to try and address the reasons they were debunked.

"What" is the the contention of the 19 items brought in from this website:

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

"Who" made the contention and "where" exactly does this contention exist.


The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.

I'd apply for the million but predicting a behavior based on previous behavior hardly constitutes detective work.

strathmeyer
21st September 2007, 06:31 PM
The above is important because it is a major factor in your claim that all 19 of the points brought in have been refuted.

Since you have problems keeping track of all of the refutations, perhaps you should pick a point that most strongly supports your case? Your inability to do so, or to say anything clear and coherent suggests you are a lunatic, like all of the other religious posters who visit the JREF.

kmortis
21st September 2007, 09:07 PM
Since you have problems keeping track of all of the refutations, perhaps you should pick a point that most strongly supports your case? Your inability to do so, or to say anything clear and coherent suggests you are a lunatic, like all of the other religious posters who visit the JREF.

strathmeyer,
That's not totally fair. We have some very well reasoned religious posters here. They're able to put forth a cogent and well-thought argument, one that is rife with proper citation and researched to a "T". There are also atheists around here that couldn't recognize a decent argument if it bit them up on the nose.

DOC is not one of the former though.

He is in the category of people that are, as described by a pastor I used to have, "so heavenly conscious that they're no earthly good." They're the type pf people who say things like "If it was good enough for St. Peter, then the King James Bible is good enough for me" with a straight face and absolutely no sense of irony. He's a convict to his convictions with an antagonistic parole board.

In short, he's a "Butthead for Jesus". I have no issue with any religious type, so long as they're not a Butthead about it.

fanboy
22nd September 2007, 02:24 PM
It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.Hardenbergh, the passage you quote has some good stuff, but it also has a number of problems. The passage above, in particular, only considers the 1st amendment. The first amendment isn't the only mention of religion in the constitution. Also, the first amendment wasn't passed by itself, but as part of a package. A look at the whole Bill of Rights brings this important Amendment to our attention:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

When Article IV, the 1st Amendment, and the 9th Amendment are added to together a larger picture forms.

1. Article IV does not guarantee "that Christian principles will always stay in government." Rather, it ensures that mixture of competing principle will always stay in government, Christian or not. Tangent: not all Christians agree what constitutes Christian principles. Something that the founding fathers were more aware of than the people who wrote that webpage you linked to.

2. The 1st Amendment keeps congress from passing laws "respecting the establishment of religion..." Not a religion, as someone pointed out, but religion in general. Madison, who wrote much of the Bill of Rights, could have been specific about it. For example, he could simply has prohibited a specific denomination of Christianity from being adopted. Also Madison could have allowed for freedom of choice among denominations of Christianity, but required a choice. A broad wording was chosen on purpose, because Madison and the other congressmen knew that sometimes believe things that the church doesn't like. Early colonial history is rife with people refusing to go to the official church and holding their own, Christian beliefs. Many of these people where tried and convicted for their failure to comply. Sometimes the punishment was death.

Now here the irony. Often, people will believe in such tenets as the Jesus is the Son of God an the source of salvation, but their beliefs will be branded by many Christians as un-Christian. Clearly, any language that included Christianity would have been used by larger Christian Churches to put-down other, smaller, Christian Churches on the basis that they were un-Christian. The broad language was included specifically so Christians couldn't just say "you're un-Christian so therefore, you have no rights."

3. The 9th Amendment explicitly states that people have rights beyond that which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Not Churches, people. Consider, people have the right to believe in whatever religion they choose, they have the right to congregate and express their religious beliefs, but the Church, as an entity, has no authority over them. Because if it had authority over them, then it would be like a government who enforces laws and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which specify guarantees that people have rights, and implies that they have a lot of them when it comes to religion and its free exercise thereof.

The Constitution is explcitly a move twords a stronger federal government that could not be controlled by a religion (Article VI), could not control a religion (1st Amendment), and gave people copious amounts of rights (9th Amendment).

Tangent: It's kind of interesting when people bring-up what the founding fathers wanted. Now, don't get me wrong, Jefferson and Madison are favorites of mine, but people act like their opinion on the Constitution is the last word on the document. It is not. For one thing, who do you think the word "people" referred to in the 9th Amendment? It wasn't slaves, though they were clearly people. It wasn't free blacks either. Prior to the Civil War, there was a huge debate over whether free black were citizens or not. The ideals expressed in the Constitution do not reflect the realities of the government it created. I wouldn't interpret the word people the same way the founder's did. For one thing, the 14th amendment has passed sense then. For another, a narrow reading isn't supported by the diction. If you are going to interpret the Constitution, then you need to read the whole constitution. This includes Amendments added after the founding. Also, any interpretation is going to have recognize that both the National and State government regularly pass laws that are unconstitutional.

DOC
24th September 2007, 02:19 AM
YOU used that list to support YOUR contention of a Christian founding. I showed the list does not such thing.


Where did I say that I was using the list to support a Christian founding. Your premise is wrong. I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation as you stated. There is a "huge difference" in saying this country has Christian foundations and saying this Country was founded as a Christian nation. This isn't about semantics or word games, the difference is very large and thus some of your points are a strawman argument.

joobz
24th September 2007, 03:09 AM
Where did I say that I was using the list to support a Christian founding. Your premise is wrong. I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation as you stated. There is a "huge difference" in saying this country has Christian foundations and saying this Country was founded as a Christian nation. This isn't about semantics or word games, the difference is very large and thus some of your points are a strawman argument.The context of this and all your threads disagree with this claim.

Garrette
24th September 2007, 05:42 AM
Where did I say that I was using the list to support a Christian founding. Your premise is wrong. I never said the US was founded as a Christian nation as you stated. There is a "huge difference" in saying this country has Christian foundations and saying this Country was founded as a Christian nation. This isn't about semantics or word games, the difference is very large and thus some of your points are a strawman argument.1. Silly semantics again, demonstrating the hollowness of your argument.

2. Okay, DOC. Tell me, please, exactly what the list of 19 was meant to demonstrate.

3. Tell me, please, what the "huge difference" between these two are (your words):

a. The country has Christian foundations
b. The country was founded as a Christian nation

4. Tell me, please, which of the 19 items on the list do you think have not been refuted.

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 06:10 AM
Originally Posted by DOC
19. The Bible was the primary textbook in our schools. Children learned their ABC's using Biblical words.

Garrette's reply to DOC's post:

Originally Posted by Garrette
Ah. So they didn’t use it to learn religion, just the alphabet. Perhaps because textbooks as such were rare or nonexistent at the founding of the nation and the most common book to be found was the bible?

Perhaps it is relevant that as actual textbooks became available the bible was discarded as a textbook?

I wouldn't say it was discarded. They still taught the principles that were set forth in the Bible when schools began using the McGuffey Reader.

Because the search for religious freedom was a major motivation of the early settlers, early communities were generally centered on religious affiliation. The Bible was the accepted sourcebook for moral as well as religious instruction—even in the “common schools,” the precursors of public schools. This began to change as immigration increased and the nation
became more ethnically and religiously diverse.

Although schools in regions that were overwhelmingly Christian continued to teach about and from the Bible, this practice declined in the large cities. By the beginning of the 20th century, teaching the “natural virtues” such as honesty, hard work, thriftiness, kindness, patriotism, and courage was a common practice. The secular McGuffey Reader, a primary reading text laced heavily with moral messages, replaced the Bible in many schools. Educators also found ways to reinforce moral precepts through penmanship lessons that had children copy maxims about wisdom and virtue. Regardless of whether these methods were a substitute for or a supplement to the teaching of religious-based values, schools promoted basic virtues as a central part of the educational mission.

http://www.nasbe.org/Standard/11_Autumn2002/Character.pdf

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15577

joobz
24th September 2007, 06:16 AM
I wouldn't say it was discarded. They still taught the principles that were set forth in the Bible when schools began using the McGuffey Reader.

Your quoted passage disagrees with your statement
The secular McGuffey Reader, a primary reading text laced heavily with moral messages, replaced the Bible in many schools. Educators also found ways to reinforce moral precepts through penmanship lessons that had children copy maxims about wisdom and virtue. Regardless of whether these methods were a substitute for or a supplement to the teaching of religious-based values, schools promoted basic virtues as a central part of the educational mission.

Unless, of course, you are asserting that morality is the exclusive domain of christianity.

ETA: Nevermind. kmortis clearly explains my error. I'll leave my post for accuracy, but I rescend my argument.

kmortis
24th September 2007, 06:20 AM
Your quoted passage disagrees with your statement


Unless, of course, you are asserting that morality is the exclusive domain of christianity.

joobz,
You ever read an early McGuffey's Reader? It's quite Christian in it's writing. It got more secular as time went on, but the early copies had entire passages from the Bible in it, usually transcribed into more prose style, but the story of David and Goliath is still the story of David and Goliath.

joobz
24th September 2007, 06:30 AM
joobz,
You ever read an early McGuffey's Reader? It's quite Christian in it's writing. It got more secular as time went on, but the early copies had entire passages from the Bible in it, usually transcribed into more prose style, but the story of David and Goliath is still the story of David and Goliath.
actually, no. That is the source of my error. the passage merely said that it was used instead of the bible to include moral teachings. I saw no reason to assume that meant those teachings were biblical as well.

kmortis
24th September 2007, 06:34 AM
actually, no. That is the source of my error. the passage merely said that it was used instead of the bible to include moral teachings. I saw no reason to assume that meant those teachings were biblical as well.

I've recommened this book earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. Go and have a read of Religious Illiteracy (http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060846704/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6154545-9270427?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190640803&sr=8-1) by Steven Prothro. It give a nice summary of the history of religion in public schools in the US.

joobz
24th September 2007, 06:57 AM
I've recommened this book earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating. Go and have a read of Religious Illiteracy (http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Literacy-American-Know-Doesnt/dp/0060846704/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6154545-9270427?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190640803&sr=8-1) by Steven Prothro. It give a nice summary of the history of religion in public schools in the US.
Just ordered it.

As soon as this round of grants is over (end of october), i'll read it.

negativ
24th September 2007, 07:19 AM
* If it's from "Truthpizza", it's gotta be true. Who can argue with a source like that?

* Why did John Adams sign a treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli) stating, among other things, that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?

kmortis
24th September 2007, 07:27 AM
* If it's from "Truthpizza", it's gotta be true. Who can argue with a source like that?

Personally, I like my truthpizza with some Aristotle and a good heaping of ground Ingersol. Yum!

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 07:31 AM
* If it's from "Truthpizza", it's gotta be true. Who can argue with a source like that?

There could be any number of reasons why that name was chosen.

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 08:45 AM
Originally Posted by DOC
8. Our national anthem mentions God.

Garrette's response to DOC's post:

Yes. In the fourth, never sung, verse. Do you know when it became the national anthem?

Hint: It was 1931 so it has nothing to do with the founding.

Are they still singing "God Bless America" at Yankee Stadium during the seventh inning?

Greg Bonin sang the National Anthem at the opening and God Bless America at the seventh inning stretch of the World Series Championship-winning Red Sox game against the Minnesota Twins.

Garrette
24th September 2007, 08:47 AM
Are they still singing "God Bless America" at Yankee Stadium during the seventh inning?No idea.


Greg Bonin sang the National Anthem at the opening and God Bless America at the seventh inning stretch of the World Series Championship-winning Red Sox game against the Minnesota Twins.So?

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 08:58 AM
I just found a recent article noting the anniversary of the National Anthem.

Today marks an anniversary seldom recognized in the United States.

On Sept. 14, 1814, Francis Scott Key wrote the words to our National Anthem. At his suggestion, the music was adapted from the tune, "To Anacreon In Heaven," attributed to Englishman John Stafford Smith.


Fred of WTVL, ME
Sep 14, 2007 1:14 PM
By the way, the last verse of "The Star Spangled Banner"

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=133903&ac=PHedi

Garrette
24th September 2007, 09:57 AM
I just found a recent article noting the anniversary of the National Anthem.The article is not celebrating the anniversary of the national anthem. It is celebrating the date of the writing of the words which would eventually become the song which would eventually become the national anthem.

The words were written in 1814. It was later sung to the tune of "Anacreon in Heaven."

It was not made the national anthem until 1931.

And still, the last verse is never sung at federal government events and rarely anywhere else.

---

Not going to answer my question about what your point is regarding "God Bless America?"

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 10:32 AM
The article is not celebrating the anniversary of the national anthem. It is celebrating the date of the writing of the words which would eventually become the song which would eventually become the national anthem.

The words were written in 1814. It was later sung to the tune of "Anacreon in Heaven."

It was not made the national anthem until 1931.

And still, the last verse is never sung at federal government events and rarely anywhere else.

---

Not going to answer my question about what your point is regarding "God Bless America?"

"America the Beautiful" is known as America's "unofficial" national anthem.

Garrette
24th September 2007, 10:35 AM
"America the Beautiful" is known as America's "unofficial" national anthem.Your article says that. I do not. I have never considered it an anthem, either official or unofficial--even when I was Christian. Nor do I know of anyone else who considers it that.

But even if 300 million Americans consider it an unofficial national anthem, then so what?

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 10:50 AM
Your article says that. I do not. I have never considered it an anthem, either official or unofficial--even when I was Christian. Nor do I know of anyone else who considers it that.

But even if 300 million Americans consider it an unofficial national anthem, then so what?

Actually, the article didn't mention the song, "America the Beautiful." Someone posted a comment underneath the article suggesting that it would make a nice national anthem except that the ACLU would be all over the line, "God shed his grace on thee..."

kmortis
24th September 2007, 10:52 AM
"America the Beautiful" is known as America's "unofficial" national anthem.

You do realize that "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" are differrent songs, right? If so, why are you using the latter to answer a question about the former? If not, they are and see previous question.

Hardenbergh
24th September 2007, 11:02 AM
You do realize that "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" are differrent songs, right? If so, why are you using the latter to answer a question about the former? If not, they are and see previous question.


I had both patriotic songs on my mind. If "God Bless America" is good enough for Kate Smith, it's good enough for me.

http://www.katesmith.org/gba.html

Garrette
24th September 2007, 11:09 AM
Actually, the article didn't mention the song, "America the Beautiful."My mistake.


Someone posted a comment underneath the article suggesting that it would make a nice national anthem except that the ACLU would be all over the line, "God shed his grace on thee..."Perhaps. Do you see the ACLU "all over" the God reference in the 4th verse of the official national anthem?


You do realize that "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" are differrent songs, right? If so, why are you using the latter to answer a question about the former? If not, they are and see previous question. I'm embarrassed. I should have caught the switch, but missed it. I don't think Hardenbergh was trying anything devious, though; she just got them mixed up.


I had both patriotic songs on my mind.See?


If "God Bless America" is good enough for Kate Smith, it's good enough for me.Not good enough for Kate. Did you see this from your own link about her?

The lyrics were inserted into the Congressional Record, and there was a movement to make the song our national anthem. Kate addressed Congress, imploring its members not to do that.

kmortis
24th September 2007, 11:41 AM
Personally, I like Kate's version of "Brazil" better.

Hardenbergh
27th September 2007, 06:01 AM
Double Post. See page 7.

http://www.prayerworksinc.com/2007/feb/fp_pages/prayer_room_window.htm

Hardenbergh
27th September 2007, 06:11 AM
I saw a few minutes of a 4-part documentary titled, "The Incredible Power of Prayer" this morning on TBN. They showed the stained glass window in the Congressional Prayer Room. The film was produced by Grizzly Adams Productions, Inc. (named after the TV series by the same name).

http://www.grizzlyadamsproductions.com/Results.html?account=IPP&cart=119089492851874

The room was completed in 1955 and opened for use. You can read the complete description at the website below.

In the medallion, immediately surrounding the central figure, woven into the ruby glass, is the text from Psalm 16:1, "Preserve me, 0 God: for in Thee do I put my trust."

Above and below are the two sides of the Great Seal of the United States. Above is the pyramid and eye with the Latin phrases, "Annuit Coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings) and "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (A new order of the ages is born). Below is the Eagle, "E Pluribus Unum" (One from many). Under the upper seal is the phrase from Lincoln's immortal Gettysburg Address, "This Nation Under God." The portion of the phrase "Under God" was recently incorporated into our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The names of the thirteen original States are on scrolls in the central portion, each with its star near by. The names of the other States in chronological order are on the laurel leaf border. The two lower corners of the window each show the Holy Scriptures, an open book and a candle, signifying the light from God's law, "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." Leaves with sacred associations are woven into the design at various points.

http://www.prayerworksinc.com/2007/feb/fp_pages/prayer_room_window.htm

It's also here:

http://www.homewardboundjournal.com/2002/jan/special_feature.htm
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/all_seeing_eye/window.html

I'm not sure whether I should have posted it here or in the Thomas Jefferson thread.

Garrette
27th September 2007, 04:51 PM
Given that the stained glass window was put there in 1955, what do you think it says about the founding of the nation?


Given that the law passed to authorized creation of the prayer room says this:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized and directed to make available a room, with facilities for prayer and meditation, for the use of Members of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Architect shall maintain the Prayer Room for individual use rather than assemblies and he shall provide appropriate symbols of religious unity and freedom of worship." what do you think its existence says about the place of religion in the government of the United States? Note the parts about individual use and not assemblies and about freedom of worship.

Given that the Official Congressional Pamphlet describing the prayer room and its creation says this:It was a first essential to make sure that no part of the furnishings and no symbol used would give offense to members of any church, and at the same time incorporate in the fabric and decoration of the room the basic unity of belief in God and His Providence that has characterized our history. To achieve these purposes, an advisory panel was constituted, representing the three great faiths that form, together, the spirit of the Nation. The Chaplains of the Senate and the House, Reverend Frederick Brown Harris and Reverend Bernard Braskamp, were joined on the advisory panel by Father Edward J. Herrmann, Assistant Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Washington, and Rabbi Norman Gerstenfeld, Minister of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. The furnishings, the window, and the symbols have met with the unanimous approval of the four. what do you think the room's existence says about the specific place of Christianity in the US government?


Given that TBN is a horrible source for accurate information, what are you trying to suggest with this post?

DOC
28th September 2007, 09:46 AM
3. Tell me, please, what the "huge difference" between these two are (your words):

a. The country has Christian foundations
b. The country was founded as a Christian nation


Using your logic the following two statements would be very similar:


a. Christianity has Jewish foundations.

b. Christianity was founded as a Jewish religion.


I stand by my statement, that the difference is huge, and not just semantics and word games as you contend.

drkitten
28th September 2007, 09:56 AM
Using your logic the following two statements would be very similar:


a. Christianity has Jewish foundations.
b. Christianity was founded as a Jewish religion.


I'm not sure what the difference you're trying to make is, but.... um, yes. I'd happily agree that those statements are very similar (and they're both, in fact, true. Christianity was a Jewish sect -- one of many "millenarian" sects that sprang up at about that time -- until Saul of Tarsus tied it in to the large Greek culture.)

kmortis
28th September 2007, 10:00 AM
Using your logic the following two statements would be very similar:


a. Christianity has Jewish foundations.

b. Christianity was founded as a Jewish religion.


I stand by my statement, that the difference is huge, and not just semantics and word games as you contend.

a. Christianity DOES have Jewish foundations. Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his apostles. JC was a rabbi before he was a convicted criminal.

b. Until Peter had his vision in Acts and Paul started writing his letters, Christianity was a Jewish sect. It wasn't for a couple of decades after Jesus's death that the real split started. Because they needed to stress the ressurection and messiah-hood of Jesus (neither of which were acceptable to Jews), they started to vilify the Jews who had "killed Jesus".

There's your huge difference.

Garrette
28th September 2007, 10:00 AM
Using your logic the following two statements would be very similar:


a. Christianity has Jewish foundations.

b. Christianity was founded as a Jewish religion.


I stand by my statement, that the difference is huge, and not just semantics and word games as you contend.First, you should read drkitten's response. It's important.

Second, I request that you pretend I'm dense (or don't pretend; maybe you really think I am; sometimes I am) and explain to me the difference. If it is huge, this should not be a problem.

Garrette
28th September 2007, 10:21 AM
Reading kmortis' post (and re-reading DOC's post), I think I begin to see the difference DOC is asserting.

Tell me if I'm right or wrong here, DOC, and if wrong, please clarify for me. You are saying:

The United States has Christian roots, but having Christian roots does not equate to having a Christian government.

If that is the case, my disagreement becomes much less dramatic, though I still disagree. I would be more inclined to agree that the United States as a society has a Christian root, but the society has other roots as well, including Greek democracy and British common law.

I would be far less argumentative if you added to your admission a corollary which states that the United States government was explicitly formed as a secular institution.

DOC
28th September 2007, 10:30 AM
Until Peter had his vision in Acts and Paul started writing his letters, Christianity was a Jewish sect.

Peter never claimed he had vision of the Resurrected Christ. He claimed he was an eye witness. And other gospels claimed Christ appeared to all the apostles and actually ate with them. This explains why Christianity spread so fast. Something caused Peter to go from a man who denied Christ 3x's to a woman at a campfire to a bold leader who ended up preaching and leading Christianity in Rome within walking distance of the Roman Emperor. All of this just doesn't add up without a Resurrection.

By the way, according to Paul, who actually met with Peter for about 2 weeks, there were 500 other witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. Once again, this helps explain the incredible growth of Christianity in Roman occupied countries.

Garrette
28th September 2007, 10:47 AM
Peter never claimed he had vision of the Resurrected Christ. He claimed he was an eye witness. And other gospels claimed Christ appeared to all the apostles and actually ate with them. This explains why Christianity spread so fast. Something caused Peter to go from a man who denied Christ 3x's to a woman at a campfire to a bold leader who ended up preaching and leading Christianity in Rome within walking distance of the Roman Emperor. All of this just doesn't add up without a Resurrection.

By the way, according to Paul, who actually met with Peter for about 2 weeks, there were 500 other witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. Once again, this helps explain the incredible growth of Christianity in Roman occupied countries.So no answers to my questions then?

kmortis
28th September 2007, 10:53 AM
Peter never claimed he had vision of the Resurrected Christ. He claimed he was an eye witness. And other gospels claimed Christ appeared to all the apostles and actually ate with them. This explains why Christianity spread so fast. Something caused Peter to go from a man who denied Christ 3x's to a woman at a campfire to a bold leader who ended up preaching and leading Christianity in Rome within walking distance of the Roman Emperor. All of this just doesn't add up without a Resurrection.

By the way, according to Paul, who actually met with Peter for about 2 weeks, there were 500 other witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. Once again, this helps explain the incredible growth of Christianity in Roman occupied countries.

BZZZT! Thank you for playing. Nowhere did I say that Pete had a vision of a Ressurected Christ. I was refering to the vision that the author of Acts reports of Peter being told that "all these things are made clean for you", in other words, the message is no longer just for Jews, but for Gentiles as well.

Please try to pay attention.

Now, for th point that you raised here (as well in the Peter in Rome thread), a ressurected Christ isn't necessary for Christianity, just the story of one. The only reason that's important is that the other forms of Christianity that existed in the first and second centries didn't garner enough followers (or enough influential followers, if you like) and was therefore nixed when the cannon was decided on.

To prove me wrong, I'll accept nothing less than an actual autograph of Luke, Paul or Matthew. Happy hunting.

Oh, and answer Garrette's questions. Avoiding questions makes the Baby Jesus cry. You don't want a crying Baby Jesus, do you?