Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 272

Thread: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

  1. #101
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Secular belief is a Christian belief. Both the word Secular and the belief in secularity are products of Christianity. This is a historical fact. Neither atheists nor Muslims have produced such a belief, such a concept. Neither atheists nor Muslims in the cores of their beliefs have been capable of producing such a concept. For both atheists and Muslims domination of their beliefs in each and every aspect of human activities is the goal of their activity. They cannot even use a toilet seat without devoting their conquest of the seat to their religious beliefs.
    How are you wrong....let us count the ways:

    1. Neither the word nor the concept is innately Christian.
    Secular
    Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
    Date:
    14th century

    1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>
    2. Muslims have for centuries had separate secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The majority of Arab/Islamic nations have such separations: The Presidents of Egypt and Syria are not clerics, neither is King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, neither is King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein of Jordan.
    3. Atheists themselves are generally (sometimes rudely) aggressive in their championing of secular authority.
    4. Christian teachers from St. Paul on down have instructed the Christian faithful to sustain their faith throughout their daily lives; my understanding is that Jewish rabbi's offer similar instruction to their faithful; Buddhists are guided in practicing "simple mindfulness". Each after their own fashion, for every religion, "domination of their beliefs in each and every aspect of human activities is the goal of their activity."

    I need read no more than the Sermon on the Mount to marvel at the impiety of your intolerance and narrowmindness. (That whole bit about "blessed are the meek....")

  2. #102
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Yes, society was very different then. People were packing up and leaving their homes and going to a far away land to escape government-sanctioned religion, much of which was Christianity.

    The Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment just the way it is. I believe most of the misconception comes from modern conditioning. There are people who want the Establishment Clause to mean nothing so they slip out rhetoric to support that.

    Also, people back then were well aware of other religions, including other beliefs right here in the new land. It could not have been so inconceivable to them that other religions needed freedom also.

    As I know it, all the evidence points to a need for the Separation of Church and State and the Framers knew it. They escaped religious prosecution either themselves or saw it happening to others. Many may have been Christian, but that only strengthens the First Amendment. If these people were really so deeply Christian and yet they still wrote the First Amendment the way it is, without mention of Christianity, knowing full well that other religions existed right here with them, then they knew the value of all religious freedom, not just Christianity.
    I'm not basing this on my modern interpretation of what they intended, I'm basing this on literally hundreds of pages of original source material that I've read on this topic, from the debates involved in the drafting of the amendment to the contemporaneous laws passed in the states. Here's a great book that lays out all the details: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Separation-Church-State-Philip-Hamburger/dp/0674013743/ref=ed_oe_p]Amazon.com: Separation of Church and State: Philip Hamburger: Books[/ame]

    And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, from the Virginia Constitution:

    That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience;
    That's about as strong of a support for the "freedom of religion" as you can get, right? From reading this without the context, you'd obviously get the impression that they wanted to ensure that government did nothing to endorse any individual religion in any way.

    Here's the rest of that sentence:

    and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other
    The point is that while the founders were obviously strong supporters of the idea of freedom of religion and opposed the establishment of a national religion, they didn't consider it an "establishment of religion" to take actions that favored particular religions, so long as they didn't cross a certain threshold.

    If you had asked the founders if they actually intended to "separate" church and state in the sense that we use it today, the vast majority of them would not have even understood the question.

    Even in our modern conception of the terms, there are plenty of ways in which the two are interrelated. While government cannot favor one religion over another, it can favor religion over non-religion.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #103
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    How the hell can you say secularism is a christian belief?? Do you actually believe Christians would create and support such a political practice? Its in there interests that a state is not secular and IS run by christian values and principles (ideally that is) the way ME states practise shariah law and are not secular.
    Secularism is an elightenment ideology from what i can gather, seperation of church and state is just far too rational to be a christian practice.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  4. #104
    Guru
    Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    02-13-17 @ 04:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,962

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not basing this on my modern interpretation of what they intended, I'm basing this on literally hundreds of pages of original source material that I've read on this topic, from the debates involved in the drafting of the amendment to the contemporaneous laws passed in the states. Here's a great book that lays out all the details: Amazon.com: Separation of Church and State: Philip Hamburger: Books

    And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, from the Virginia Constitution:

    That's about as strong of a support for the "freedom of religion" as you can get, right? From reading this without the context, you'd obviously get the impression that they wanted to ensure that government did nothing to endorse any individual religion in any way.

    Here's the rest of that sentence:

    The point is that while the founders were obviously strong supporters of the idea of freedom of religion and opposed the establishment of a national religion, they didn't consider it an "establishment of religion" to take actions that favored particular religions, so long as they didn't cross a certain threshold.

    If you had asked the founders if they actually intended to "separate" church and state in the sense that we use it today, the vast majority of them would not have even understood the question.

    Even in our modern conception of the terms, there are plenty of ways in which the two are interrelated. While government cannot favor one religion over another, it can favor religion over non-religion.
    I agree that the original intent of the First Amendment was to limit the federal government, but the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that.

    Thanks for the book recommendation. You seem to know this subject so I was going to ask you (and Zyphlin) for something like that. I'll definitely get it and read it.

  5. #105
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    You must be extremely intolerant of most Muslim nations then.
    Thats not the point here.
    Muslim nations aren't making MY country look like intolerant pricks.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  6. #106
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    and which has at the very core of its law proscribed Christian government
    Still waiting to see what makes it specifically "christian" as opposed to Jewish.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  7. #107
    Student The Jovial One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Last Seen
    07-20-09 @ 11:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    160

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Still waiting to see what makes it specifically "christian" as opposed to Jewish.
    Or Muslim. Or Hindu. Or non-religious.

  8. #108
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Still waiting to see what makes it specifically "christian" as opposed to Jewish.
    Simple demographics. The founding fathers subscribed to a variety of Christian denominations, and the majority of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, subscribe to a variety of Christian denominations.

    However, we do not have, and per the Constitution can never have, either a Christian, a Jewish, or a Muslim government. Per the Constitution, we can never have a government predicated on any single religion or its tenets of faith.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Simple demographics. The founding fathers subscribed to a variety of Christian denominations, and the majority of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, subscribe to a variety of Christian denominations.

    However, we do not have, and per the Constitution can never have, either a Christian, a Jewish, or a Muslim government. Per the Constitution, we can never have a government predicated on any single religion or its tenets of faith.
    So, if the people who happened to build my computer in the factory just happened to be christians, my computer is a CHRISTIAN computer?
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: "We do not consider ourselves a christian nation", says Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I am failing to see how this country was founded on spiritual freedom based on Christianity.
    I am failing to understand why do you have to ignore the answer to the question which has already been given in my post, and have to impose the question to the conclusion from the premises which are totally ignored by you.

    When the government does not interfere with your spirituality, you have spiritual freedom.


    The concept of non-interference of the government with any affairs of the Church (which was and is the most expression of spirituality), of a wall protecting the Church is a solely Christian concept. Those were not Muslims or atheists or Hindus who fought for centuries (even among themselves) to make the 1st amendment to happen, who sacrificed their lives
    Thomas_More
    who went through physical and intellectual struggle to establish this concept in a formation of a state.


    These are historical facts. I even gave a link to one of many. It is not like I have to teach history, - you can research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    It seems more likely that it is based on religious neutrality given the First Amendment.

    What is the religious neutrality you are making up?


    The concept of non-interference of the government with any affairs of the Church ( do you mean this neutrality?), of a wall protecting the Church is a solely Christian concept. There has been a long struggle within the Church to establish such a concept. The attempts of maintaining a state-Church had been failing. The concept had become the clause #1 of Magna Carte – imposed by the Church on the State. Then from the Magna Carte it came to the 1st amendment, - the same clause, the same concept. These are historical facts. It is not like the Founders woke up once in the morning…

    Atheists keep on imposing the absurd notion that those Christians gathered together and decided – ‘let’s forget that that we are Christians and let’s step away from Christian beliefs and let’s put some limits on Christianity, some really good limits so then we can always say like Peter that we don’t know that man”.

    This notion is illogical, and you keep on repeating it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    If it is true, that Christianity was the foundation, it would seem logical that that would have been part of the document that founded us.
    I wouldn’t even know what you are demanding. The Bible had been already taken for the foundation of the Church. The history and the concept of Christian relations between the state and the Church have been pointed to. When your wife demands you to lower the toilet seat, or when you play chess or football you are in the middle of secular activities. That was pointed by the Church hundred years before the Founders were born. The church had the need to sort what belonged to Cesar or your wife and what belonged to God.

    The King or the Congress do not regulate Christianity or act from the name of Christ, the Church does, at the same time nothing forbids the Congress or the King to follow teachings of the Church in their relations (or absence of thereof) with God. It is not like the Founders woke up once in the morning and figured that out… It all started from the word of God in the Bible. Muslims and atheists do not have such words in their books.


    You may pray God to remind you about the toilet seat, but generally conquering the toilet or collecting taxes are not spiritual activities related to the Church, they are secular activities. There was a need for the church to separate the activities, the need arose from the necessity to follow the Bible. Both the word Secular and the concept of secularity are products of Christianity. This is a historical fact. Neither atheists nor Muslims have produced such a belief, such a concept. There was a need to figure out what belongs to Cesar and what belonged to God. Those words of the Bible couldn’t be ignored as any other word of the Bible. Neither atheists nor Muslims have such words in their books, moreover, their books are all about bringing Cesar and God into one entity.

    The Church removes itself from regulating toilet seats or voting mechanisms; atheists and obama want to remove any spirituality from any affairs of the government, leaving room only for atheism or total lack of spirituality. Maintaining the wall guarding the Church from the government, the church being the most explicit concentration of spirituality and spiritual freedoms guaranties such a freedom for all.

    The Founders were making the Republic of free people and states. What in your view they were supposed to put in the documents to prove to you that they were following their Christianity, when it was self-evident for them that they did? I wouldn’t even know what you are demanding. They put Creator in the Declaration as a reference universal to both sides. Any other extended reference would require the Church to argue or the government would find itself involved in regulation of the Church – and then which Church? They signed under the words ‘’of our Lord’’, excepting JC as their Lord, no matter which Church. Each state and person was left with the freedom they could choose. The Founders were in making of the mechanism or the republic, which, the making of a mechanism, was quite a secular activity. According to Christianity the state does not take the power to use and interpret the Bible universally for all and for everyone. The Pope does that for Catholics, and Catholics may choose to become Baptists, the Pope does not have the power to announce fatwa calling to behead the traitors. Baptists limit his power to do that. I would extend on the matter of the Founders and the Republic and the Church, but I have done a few times and have found that atheists do not take historical facts and logical arguments. I feel like should thank you for avoiding usual juvenile utterances so many atheists like to post in reply to my posts like http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...-morality.html but I will not,........ yet.




    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    I am also failing to see the connection to anything here related to cannibalism. Could you elaborate more on that?
    You can see my sig. Is it difficult to read? When you are led to ignore historical facts and misrepresent teaching of Christianity you choose to criticize or disagree with just in order to facilitate your argument and to avoid intellectual labor, then there is no path you may not choose to allow yourself to facilitate your urges, - even the path of cannibalism is not out of the question. Your notion: ‘Look I am an atheist, but I am no cannibal’ is lacking the word yet, as atheism has been proven historically to turn into cannibalism on a quite regular basis.

Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •