America is a Christian Nation


GryHounnd

Banned
America was founded by those seeking refuge from religious persecution. It's simply historical fact.

There is a vast difference between the various historical groups fleeing persecution in the old world, and creating a government that did not pick favorites with regards to religion. Depending on where they came from, you had Calvanists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Unitarians, & Jews amongst many others. Each one of those denominations all KNEW the way they worshiped God and ran their societies were the right way to do it. Our founding fathers were members of most if not all those denominations. They were smart enough to know that they couldn't agree on the best way to worship God because they all came from places where someone was trying to tell them how to do that exact thing. Today's Republican religious zealots either don't get it or they're just too stupid to remember that lesson.

The reason that I (I won't speak for all democrats) don't want hyper religious politicians spouting their often fundamentalist garbage down my throat is because I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE. To worship my God in my way, to teach my children the values I know are important, and to make sure they learn how to be scientifically literate. I don't give a damn about your views of how the earth was created in seven literal days because your interpretation of the bible says so, how God finds every sperm to be sacred, or how he controls destiny so global warming isn't possibly real. I want to be left alone, and if I HAVE to have a conversation about those last 2 things, I want to have a rational, data driven discussion about policy and laws, not be shown chapter and verse from your Bible, it has no place in a data driven discussion. The Bible, which while it is a wonderful book, is not suitable for being the total basis for our laws and regulations.

If the immoral minority wants to play at being a christian in their media vacuum, where the Bible was the only book worth being produced, fine! Don't shove it down my throat as the basis for all the laws I have to follow. Since no one can consistently agree on how to interpret it's meaning leave the Bible alone as a book of worship. Don't treat it as a text book, they go out of date FAST, you do it no favors by treating it like one. This country was not founded as a theocracy. If you want to live under that type of government, go to Iran or contact the Islamic State, I'm sure they'd love to have you....once they MAKE you come around to their way of thinking.
 

BC1

,
And knowing from first-hand experience that religion becomes even more malignant when it's part of government, they took pains to separate the two--to ensure that this new nation may well be full of christians (today a rapidly declining segment of American society even though you wouldn't know it from all the noise they make in an attempt to mask their accelerating irrelevancy) but that their government, and therefore the nation, would not be.
Not so much that they took pains to separate the two. Rather they took pains to ensure government would not respect one religion over another. Separation of church and state is not guaranteed by the constitution.
 

BC1

,
There is a vast difference between the various historical groups fleeing persecution in the old world, and creating a government that did not pick favorites with regards to religion. Depending on where they came from, you had Calvanists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Unitarians, & Jews amongst many others. Each one of those denominations all KNEW the way they worshiped God and ran their societies were the right way to do it. Our founding fathers were members of most if not all those denominations. They were smart enough to know that they couldn't agree on the best way to worship God because they all came from places where someone was trying to tell them how to do that exact thing. Today's Republican religious zealots either don't get it or they're just too stupid to remember that lesson.

The reason that I (I won't speak for all democrats) don't want hyper religious politicians spouting their often fundamentalist garbage down my throat is because I JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE. To worship my God in my way, to teach my children the values I know are important, and to make sure they learn how to be scientifically literate. I don't give a damn about your views of how the earth was created in seven literal days because your interpretation of the bible says so, how God finds every fkn sperm to be sacred, or how he controls destiny so global warming isn't possibly real. I want to be left alone, and if I HAVE to have a conversation about those last 2 things, I want to have a rational, data driven discussion about policy and laws, not be shown chapter and verse from your Bible, it has no place in a data driven discussion. The Bible, which while it is a wonderful book, is not suitable for being the total basis for our laws and regulations.

If the immoral minority wants to play at being a christian in their media vacuum, where the Bible was the only book worth being produced, fine! Don't shove it down my throat as the basis for all the laws I have to follow. Since no one can consistently agree on how to interpret it's meaning leave the Bible alone as a book of worship. Don't treat it as a text book, they go out of date FAST, you do it no favors by treating it like one. This country was not founded as a theocracy. If you want to live under that type of government, go to fckn Iran or contact the Islamic State, I'm sure they'd love to have you....once they MAKE you come around to their way of thinking.
Please don't use "God" and fu---ing in the same sentence. You're insulting believers in a religious thread. If you want to curse God start an atheist thread. Very bad taste.
 

GryHounnd

Banned
Not so much that they took pains to separate the two. Rather they took pains to ensure government would not respect one religion over another. Separation of church and state is not guaranteed by the constitution.

If separation of church and state is not guaranteed, then conservatives should have no problem with birth control being required for all Obamacare health plans. After all, religious objections shouldn't have any bearing, separation of church and state are not guarnteed. You can't have it both ways. You either support Congress not making laws that impact your religious beliefs, or you don't.
 

whodat2710

New member
If separation of church and state is not guaranteed, then conservatives should have no problem with birth control being required for all Obamacare health plans. After all, religious objections shouldn't have any bearing, separation of church and state are not guarnteed. You can't have it both ways. You either support Congress not making laws that impact your religious beliefs, or you don't.
Wrong on so many levels. Hobby Lobby had no problem with birth control. Their medical coverage provided birth control. Morning after pills are not birth control, they are an "oops I forgot to use birth control" pill. Simple without even being scientific about it. Abortion on the other hand IS a religious issue, as well as a moral issue and a medical issue. You want to talk about hypocrisy, then explain how if stealing my guns can save one child it is worth it, but the same does not apply to abortion?
 

GryHounnd

Banned
Wrong on so many levels. Hobby Lobby had no problem with birth control. Their medical coverage provided birth control. Morning after pills are not birth control, they are an "oops I forgot to use birth control" pill. Simple without even being scientific about it. Abortion on the other hand IS a religious issue, as well as a moral issue and a medical issue. You want to talk about hypocrisy, then explain how if stealing my guns can save one child it is worth it, but the same does not apply to abortion?


The entire case was about birth control, or more properly just control of certain people. Hobby Lobby wasn't the only plaintiff listed in the suit & some of the plaintiffs in the case objected to ALL forms of birth control. Did you know that Hobby Lobby actually offered coverage for the very devices they objected to in their healthcare plans right up until the year they filed their lawsuit? Where was their moraility and religious objection then? They didn't want to include certain forms of it in their health plan including the morning after pill and IUD's. They deliberately and falsely conflated those forms of birth control with abortion. The morning after pill is not abortion, it is a shot of hormones that prevents an egg, fertilized or not, from embedding in the uterus. So yes, it is birth control in the same vein as normal birth control, simply in a more concentrated form to be used to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in an emergency. In addition, Hobby Lobby also objected to certain IUDs which are clearly classified as birth control, prevent pregnancy, and cannot be classified as a form of abortion by any stretch of the imagination. Hobby Lobby was about birth control, not abortion procedures. Furthermore, the ENTIRE basis for their victory in the Hobby Lobby case was their objection on 1st amendment religious grounds, PERIOD!!!! You can't have it both ways, you can't say we are a Christian Nation, we were founded on godly principals, we want laws and institutions that reflect that, and then in the same breath argue that Hobby Lobby was not about religious freedom. It is entirely based on that .

I don't and won't make any argument about taking your guns to protect children, unless of course your a convicted criminal dirtbag and a threat to society. Then by all means I hope that they take every firearm you own, then snag your A$$ and throw it in a deep hole and promptly forget about you. As for the morality of the issue. Where is the morality in fighting to save an unwanted child, while screaming all the time about taking responsibility, and then preventing an individual from doing exactly that because you think it encourages promiscuity? Where is the morality in preventing someone from taking responsibility for their actions by preventing the situation of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place? You tell me where the morality is in imposing your religious predisposition on someone else because it might offend you?
 

XD40scinNC

New member
With regards to God being specifically mentioned in the constitution, it occured exactly 1 time to denote the year. However anyone who tries to cite that as proof that we were founded as a christian nation is really stretching in my opinion. The term Anno Domini has been standard nomenclature on the Gregorian Calendar and is more of a testament to the fact that the western calendar was created by a pope who saw Christ's death as the defining moment in history than anything else.
It is just a statement of which measure was used, no different than the tag in you shoes that specifies the size by country, simply to eliminate confusion between the different methods of measure, be it shoe size or date.

I find it much more intriguing that our founding fathers mentioned religion 3 times in the Constitution all in a prohibitive manner. In other words they banned religious tests for those taking public offices up to and including saying "So help me God" in the oath of office. The other one is of course the first amendment and the prohibition against making any law with regards to religion. This of course has led to the doctrine of separation of church and state.
+1

These are questions that I am sure most chrisitian fundamentalists rarely think about or are prepared to answer when they assert we are a christian nation. Nor are they prepared to answer the question of which version of christianity is the correct one. In their hearts they probably would say their denomination is the correct one.
To most christians the bible is like a software license, scroll to the bottom and click accept without any understanding, or even reading it.
 

XD40scinNC

New member
Please don't use "God" and fu---ing in the same sentence. You're insulting believers in a religious thread. If you want to curse God start an atheist thread. Very bad taste.

Who are you to judge, after all doesn't the christian dogma tell christians not to judge, that ain't their job, but their gods special privilege?
 

XD40scinNC

New member
Wrong on so many levels. Hobby Lobby had no problem with birth control. Their medical coverage provided birth control. Morning after pills are not birth control, they are an "oops I forgot to use birth control" pill. Simple without even being scientific about it. Abortion on the other hand IS a religious issue, as well as a moral issue and a medical issue. You want to talk about hypocrisy, then explain how if stealing my guns can save one child it is worth it, but the same does not apply to abortion?

Or I forgot my gun and was raped. Religion, through laws, wants to further victimizing that woman by forcing her to carry a rapists spawn to term.
 

BC1

,
If separation of church and state is not guaranteed, then conservatives should have no problem with birth control being required for all Obamacare health plans. After all, religious objections shouldn't have any bearing, separation of church and state are not guarnteed. You can't have it both ways. You either support Congress not making laws that impact your religious beliefs, or you don't.
Check the topic. Separation of church and state is written nowhere. Not in any federal document. Not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights. This term was coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1803, long after our founding. Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists who were fearful government would curtail their religious practices. Exactly what he meant was that government shall make no law abolishing a religion or forcing others to comply or with any religion or religious views in conflict with their belief. What Jefferson meant was that the Bill of Rights protected the free exercise of religion. EQUALLY! Exactly the core of the Hobby-Lobby case. However, separation of church and state was never part of American law, the constitution or bill of rights. There is no "guarantee" of separation of church and state. There is only a 1st amendment provision that the state will not recognize any religious practice over another or force any person to act contrary to his/her religious belief.
.
When you see a Christmas nativity at a government building they are not violating your constitutional rights. They are not favoring one view over another as long as they allow a Muslim display, a Jewish display, a Kwanza display, Hindu, etc. Such would include an atheist display... which would be an empty spot for the religion of null. But don't think for a minute that the constitution requires the atheist or agnostic religious beliefs take precedent over any other established form of religion... including voodoo. THAT, would mean the government is forcing a religion of null on believers. And atheism IS a religion. Here's the test. If I chose not to hire you or fired you because you were an atheist, how long would it take you to sue me under the RELIGIOUS protections of the U.S. Civil Rights Act f 1964? Same damn thing.
.
This could all be cleared-up by codifying a definition of God into federal law as being "any higher power, religious figure, being, any belief or nature itself." At that point an atheist can say he doesn't believe in nature but... there ends the argument for them. You don't believe in God? Good for you. But why not just go for a beer when "God Bless America" is played during the seventh-inning stretch. Oh God, woe is me... my virgin ears heard something religious and I can't handle it! :fie: The law must change so I don' hear such things! Cry-baby pains in the ass. There's more problems in this world that need attention.
 

nosreme

Member
Check the topic. Separation of church and state is written nowhere. Not in any federal document. Not in the Constitution. Not in the Bill of Rights. This term was coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1803, long after our founding. Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists who were fearful government would curtail their religious practices. Exactly what he meant was that government shall make no law abolishing a religion or forcing others to comply or with any religion or religious views in conflict with their belief. What Jefferson meant was that the Bill of Rights protected the free exercise of religion. EQUALLY! Exactly the core of the Hobby-Lobby case. However, separation of church and state was never part of American law, the constitution or bill of rights. There is no "guarantee" of separation of church and state. There is only a 1st amendment provision that the state will not recognize any religious practice over another or force any person to act contrary to his/her religious belief...

No matter how often this guy is reminded that the above is flat out wrong (especially the grossly incorrect "separation of church and state" verbiage he likes to indulge in), he regurgitates it endlessly. He's a good example of how so many conspicuous christians see nothing wrong with endlessly repeating what they know to be big lies, no doubt on the theory even if it "resonates" with one sucker out there, it's worth it. Lying and misrepresenting for Jesus keeps lots of people busy (and lots of people employed).
 

GryHounnd

Banned
Nobrains,
I cited the damn thing as a doctrine not a freakin right. Some people can't read. Doctrines at best are guidelines not guarantees. Dumba$$

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app
 

whodat2710

New member
Or I forgot my gun and was raped. Religion, through laws, wants to further victimizing that woman by forcing her to carry a rapists spawn to term.

Wrong again, Hobby Lobby et.al. did not want to be the instrument of that abortion. Big difference. Has there been one report of them or any company taking action against an employee that got an abortion? It is the same with gay marriage, none of the Christians on the receiving end of the lawsuits has said they wished ill on the gays, or wanted to change their minds by preaching to them. They just did not want to be forced by the government to be an active participant in what they believe is wrong. Try to spin it how you want, the issue is the government knowing what is best for you, so you shut up and provide those abortion pills, perform that gay wedding ceremony, bake that gay wedding cake etc.
 

Debray

New member
Debray, please pay attention or you look like a dork. You have just answered a question about the Constitution with quotes from the Declaration of Independence. Your other part about what he said to or wrote for Ezra Stiles would be pertinent, if you added a link so we could trust that source. I have never seen that before, hence I don't necessarily believe it just because you put dates and quotation marks there.

When you discuss the Constitution and its relevance to the intentions and Faith of the Founders it includes the Declaration of Independence, without one there couldn’t be the other.
As Alexander Hamilton said, “The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment”.

It doesn't bother me when someone calls me a dork it gives me insight to the mentality of the individual I dealing with.

It also brings to mind the words of a College Professor and very good friend of mine.
“I no longer find them worth arguing with, because they violate every rule of argumentation and debate. To name a few, and only a few, they make irrelevant arguments, they often use invective (simple name-calling, i.e. "dork"), they resort to ad hominem attacks (attacking the person, not the point), they use straw-man arguments (arguments against things you haven't even said), and the list goes on and on. They seem to think they're intellectuals, but their arguments are silly. They argue with you over the trees, but don't comprehend the forest they're in”.

Franklin's early commitments to Deism did not last long, like many with age, comes wisdom and the closer you get to meeting your maker the better your understanding of God thus the letter to Ezra Stiles 6 weeks before his death.

I wish you and yours a blessed Thanksgiving

Chuck
 

nosreme

Member
The things you learn from the conspicuous (i.e., obnoxiously narcissistic) religious nuts here are just amazing. We've already been told that the Bible is a valid history book as well as a definitive science book--not to mention a compilation of astoundingly accurate prophecies. And of course, we've been enlightened about how evolution is just a hypothesis, that the earth was created only about 6000 years ago with humans and dinosaurs coexisting, and that the Establishment Clause's purpose is to keep government out of religion but not the reverse. Now we learn that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are one and the same! Fortunately, the ranting religious kooks here aren't representative of the greater community of religious people in this forum and in general society.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,503
Messages
624,392
Members
74,347
Latest member
elena
Top