• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

How much foreign aid does Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey give to the world? How about the US? Charity is a Christian value that we practice all the time. Who is usually always Johnny on the Spot to help others....yeah that's right, the US. How many Muslim countries do you see flying to the rescue of anyone? How much freedom of religion exists in Muslims countries?

I'm confused how exactly does this explain away the apparent contradiction between the 1st amendment and the 1st commandment?

EDIT: Or am I simply mistaken about the commandments being the foundation of "Christian values"?

Edit 2: And since when do the Christians hold the monopoly on charity?

Edit 3: Lol sorry too hastily typed out without much forethought... I must be getting tired.... How does the "Anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior is going to hell" philosophy somehow morph Freedom of religion into a christian value?
 
Last edited:
America is largely a Christian nation.
Demographically, America is a Christian nation.

We do not have a "Christian" government. The First Amendment, in proscribing the power of government to regulate religion, by implication prohibits this.

Sad that the presumptive Constitutional scholar sitting in the Oval Office is unable to make the distinction.
 
Demographically, America is a Christian nation.

Well by the same logic then we are also a white nation, a poor nation, and swiftly becoming aan obese nation.... just curious should we be touting ourselves as such? As long as were talking about demographics.
 
How much foreign aid does Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey give to the world? How about the US? Charity is a Christian value that we practice all the time. Who is usually always Johnny on the Spot to help others....yeah that's right, the US. How many Muslim countries do you see flying to the rescue of anyone? How much freedom of religion exists in Muslims countries?

Charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
 
Maybe because we both know you're full of ****. SA gives $48B over 12 years, while we give more than that every year. Here's a list that I quickly found, that doesn't even have a single Muslim country listed. Probably because their giving is so pathetically puny.

Per Capita Foreign Aid Assistance by World's Wealthiest Countries, 2002 — Infoplease.com

Maybe because ME countries are not on the list be cause they among the richest nations. BTW Saudi Arabia is 45 out 50 among the richest nations.


World Richest Countries at cyList
 
Well by the same logic then we are also a white nation, a poor nation, and swiftly becoming aan obese nation.... just curious should we be touting ourselves as such? As long as were talking about demographics.
As we are not nor ever were a "white" nation, as our standard of living is generally higher than the rest of the world, those assertions are demonstrably and demographically false. As for obesity.....yeah, a good many Americans need to stop super-sizing the fries and hit the treadmill more often.

Should we be saying "America is....." any of these things? One can--it would be advisable to be correct and accurate in your depiction (which eliminates the assertion of America being a "white" nation).

Should the President of the United States be making such statements (especially the current one, who claims some expertise on the Constitution) and not distinguishing between our government and our society? Absolutely not. Broadly, America is a Christian nation, but from the start has been a nation without Christian government, and which has at the very core of its law proscribed Christian government; that is the statement the President of the United States should be making, if he wishes to fairly and accurately depict the demographic and legal reality that is America.
 
Demographically, America is a Christian nation.

We do not have a "Christian" government. The First Amendment, in proscribing the power of government to regulate religion, by implication prohibits this.

Sad that the presumptive Constitutional scholar sitting in the Oval Office is unable to make the distinction.
I disagree. America is a nation which is full of Christians, not a "Christian Nation.". By the way, the number of Americans claiming to be Christian is on the decline. One article I read has America down to 75% Christian, a drop of 10% over the last couple of decades.
 
Who are you responding to?

They wrote it that way because it was inconceivable to them that anyone could consider generic governmental support for Christian morals to fall within the description of an "establishment of religion." Society was very different back then, and a large part of the misconceptions that exist today come from trying to look at their words and actions from our modern perspective.

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.
 
You don't speak with any authority. "American law is not based on blah blah blah, and the rest you have no clue what you're talking about. Next you'll bring out the flat-earthers thing. The American culture that has developed over 300 years is Christian. Our laws reflect that culture.

Our laws reflect common human desire, it just so happens religion is based on the same thing.
 
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.

Actually, much as Right was saying, while much of it was Christianity it was specific sects of Christianity. Many of the first pilgrims across the sea were indeed escaping from a form of christianity....so that they could practice a different form of christianity.
 
Is that why the first Commandment and the First Amendment contradict each other?

It goes so much more broader than this. Many religions are complete contradictions to our Constitution.

Religions include rules imposed on its adherents that absolutely must be followed.

Our Constitution is meant to limit the government in order to allow people to make their own decisions in life.

Religion and our Constitution are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
 
Actually, much as Right was saying, while much of it was Christianity it was specific sects of Christianity. Many of the first pilgrims across the sea were indeed escaping from a form of christianity....so that they could practice a different form of christianity.

Still... Christianity.
 
As we are not nor ever were a "white" nation, as our standard of living is generally higher than the rest of the world, those assertions are demonstrably and demographically false. As for obesity.....yeah, a good many Americans need to stop super-sizing the fries and hit the treadmill more often.

Until blacks weren't given the same rights as their white counterparts(You know. All the good stuff that comes with being a citizen and not a second class citizen) then we most certainly were a nation of whites.
 
ok well I seem to be confused what we are actually trying to debate here. As is the norm for many debates such as these it would appear many of us are arguing around different points and it would appear we need to actually define what we all mean by the term "Christian Nation" is it:

1. demographic? - the majority of people residing withing the boundaries of the United states subscribe to some flavor of the Christian faith.

2. Inherited? - The people who founded this nation were Christian and as such the US has inherited this trait.

3. Philosophical? - the precepts of Nation were intended to succumb to Christian moral teachings

we seem to keep talking around each other without even accurately defining what we mean by this. If we cant even determine what we mean by the term "Christian nation" how can anyone even begin to try and develop an opinion as to whether or not it was even right or wrong to say such a thing....

Personally I don't thing the demographic argument holds as Iraq (pre-invasion) was always considered a secular state in the Middle East regardless of the majority Muslim population (albeit from different sects)

the inheritance argument is just too absurd in my mind to place a inherited title on a nation that prides itself on the ability of its legislature to adapt it to changing times and environments and thus its evolution into something different that what it was previously

And to the philosophical argument.... well I guess I'll be boring and revert back to the freedom of religion ieda and our claim to be tolerant to all religions and not to give special treatment or consideration to one religion over another.
 
I'm confused how exactly does this explain away the apparent contradiction between the 1st amendment and the 1st commandment?

EDIT: Or am I simply mistaken about the commandments being the foundation of "Christian values"?

Edit 2: And since when do the Christians hold the monopoly on charity?

Edit 3: Lol sorry too hastily typed out without much forethought... I must be getting tired.... How does the "Anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior is going to hell" philosophy somehow morph Freedom of religion into a christian value?

You have made up the” contradiction” and you have made up “apparent” either due to the lack minimal logic or due reading comprehension problems. Then you keep on going around and pretend to be confused. God has promised you to punish you for entering in the contract with him and then breaking the contract. You are free not to enter in the contract and you are free to break it. This is the foundation of Christian values. Moses entered the contract on the behalf of his nation. Other nations and people are free to enter into the contract and break it. The state forcing people to enter into the contract and assuming the role of god punishing for breaking the contract – is a value of Islam. The state preventing people from entering the contract and forcing them to break the contract is a value of atheism. The state not interfering with relation between its people and God is a Christian value. What good can it ever be for God and Christianity if it forced people with mental problems and lack of minimal comprehension of basic values to enter in the contract with so many clauses? Such a contract requires some intelligence sufficient at least for understanding of the text of the contract.
 
This is one of my issues with Libertarians of recent years. They try to make out that the Founders are some kind of deities; omniscient being that know all of everything forever and ever. They try and judge what the thought process was 200+ years ago based on their thought processes now and on the modern day, seemingly because somehow the Founders were so singularly intelligent that unlike any group of people alive they were able to know how things would be two centuries later.

The Founders were incredibly intelligent people, and great thinkers, but I think we actually do them a disservice when so many people treat them as if they are some sort of gods..

I have difficulties to find Libertarians ( and I am an anti-Libertarian) or any reasonable person who treats the FF as some sort of gods. Atheists usually look for gods and make idols, but Libertarians are not always atheists, and they do not always lack reason . it seems like you are making a strawman.

By saying "we're a Christian nation" must automatically mean we're a bunch of zealots.

It does automatically mean that for Muslims and atheists, - otherwise what is the necessety to make the statement that we are not a Christian nation except for necessety to calm down muslims and atheists?
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
The United States is not a Christian nation. It is one built on secular beliefs. There is a church and state separation.
Don't mistake a country with a christian majority to mean it IS a christian country.

I'm tuning into FOX. I want to see the reaction, i'm almost breathless to see how they twist it. .


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.

The statement The United States is not a Christian nation is just a reciting of the Muslim/atheist’s Tripoli treatment interpretation. The US used exactly the same wording according to the Muslim/atheist’s Tripoli treatment interpretation. Soon after that the USMC was tearing apart Muslim sea pirates, the ones who were assured - according to atheistic beliefs - that the US was not a Christian nation, the ones whose piracy have been defended by the “peaceful” Muslim of DP Laila with such a militant rage.

“History repeats itself twice- the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce”. Of course, Obama is totally blank of knowing or understanding any historical concept or any concept. He is a total farce. So we have to remove the real historical context from his statement because it has never entered his mind, - then we have to come to the real concept of his words, which is - ‘look I am not a Christian, therefore…’. Sure, Hussein Obama, you aren’t. You are not representing American concepts and beliefs, neither Christians nor secular ones (originated from Christianity). The same statement has been posted by atheists everywhere in the US, including DP, - “look, I am not a Christian, therefore….”

Turkey or any other country is as good as it accepts the concept of secularism, the concept which is based on the Bible, Christian theology and Christian history. Turkey, as it still looks to me, is held back by its bloody Muslim history, - resisting to the Christian concept of secularity of the government. I, as Christian, wouldn’t even know why Obam has to state that The United States is not a Christian nation if Turkey is not an Islamic nation. Atheists have to explain me the absurd of his statement and the necessity of it. Atheists always make absurd statements. Is Turkey an Islamic, an anti-Christian nation? Why does Obam feel like he is forced to betray the history and tradition of the US and the vast majority of Americans, and to say, - ‘don’t think bad about us, we are not Christians’? Did he have to – under what circumstances? Only because Muslims who do not mind and promote Islamic states see the concept of Christianity as a threat for them, - obam has to clarify that we as a nation do not mind Islamic states and we, Christians denounce the Christian concept of secularity for the sake of Islamic concepts? No, Mr. President, we don’t. As his spiritual mentor has been spitting in the face of Christianity and America, now the President of my country spits in my face and betrays other Christians, including the ones who founded this country and gave it the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ones who acted on the base of their Christian beliefs as it was and is required from Christians. 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”.

As the President despises me for clinging to my guns and religion, as he, pressured by Islam which promotes formation of Islamic nations and demands denunciation of Christianity from non-Islamic nations, announces that he does not know me, so I officially call for his impeachment; I don’t know him neither.

The concept of non-interference of the government with any affairs of the Church, 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 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More]Thomas More - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] who went through physical and intellectual struggle to establish this concept in a formation of a state.

Now atheists led by obama are to destroy the very foundation of this country, the concept of spritual freedom based on Christianity; following their despise of natural freedoms they are always ready to bow and bend for demands and concepts of Islam and cannibalism.




P.S.

This is another example of why you weren't suposed to vote for Obama.
Atheists are strong by their ability to organize and act uniformly, - and this is another warning for those weak Christians who have been skipping Church services and distancing their individualities and intellectualism from the support of the Church. If one accepts Christian values, including the secular government, one has to accept the order of JC to be a part of the Church, to support the Church of JC. The support goes both ways. Individually we are not to withstand the forces which are set to remove our American freedoms.
 
Last edited:
With all the crap happening in the world how is it this innocuous and pro-American statement by Obama is an issue? Is this anything like during the campaign it was said he shouldn't be Prez because his local video store had a record of him returning dvd rentals late and never took the time to rewind them?
 
Now atheists led by obama are to destroy the very foundation of this country, the concept of spritual freedom based on Christianity; following their despise of natural freedoms they are always ready to bow and bend for demands and concepts of Islam and cannibalism.

I am failing to see how this country was founded on spiritual freedom based on Christianity. It seems more likely that it is based on religious neutrality given the First Amendment. 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 am also failing to see the connection to anything here related to cannibalism. Could you elaborate more on that?
 
I have difficulties to find Libertarians ( and I am an anti-Libertarian) or any reasonable person who treats the FF as some sort of gods. Atheists usually look for gods and make idols, but Libertarians are not always atheists, and they do not always lack reason . it seems like you are making a strawman.

I'm making an observation, not a strawman. Its a stated opinion based on the attitude exuded by numerous Libertarians on this forum and elsewhere in regards to the seeming omniscience that they seem to consiously or unconsiously attach to the founding fathers.

If you disagree, so be it. This is the distinct attitude they give off to myself however.

It does automatically mean that for Muslims and atheists, - otherwise what is the necessety to make the statement that we are not a Christian nation except for necessety to calm down muslims and atheists?

No, they may THINK that, that doesn't mean that. See, words have meanings. Zealot has a specific meaning. Stating that "This is a Christian Nation" does not mean "its a nation of Zealots". It just doesn't. Ignorant people or bigoted people or prejudice people that think "religious person = zealot" can THINK that, but by the definition of what a Zealot is it does not mean it.

Saying we're a Christian Nation and basing that statement off the fact that many of the beliefs and many traditions of this nation, not just by the founders in government but by the first citizens of this country, were founded in Christian belief and due to the fact that the majority of the country identifies itself as Christian is one thing that can be said and legitimately debated.

Saying we're a Nation of Christian Zealots would mean that the majority of this nation are excessively zealous and fanatical in their following of Christianity, which simply is not factually correct.
 
I am failing to see how this country was founded on spiritual freedom based on Christianity. It seems more likely that it is based on religious neutrality given the First Amendment. 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.

Absolutely not. What you're saying is that its impossible for people to found something based on the ideals, principles, traditions, and morals that they have in large part due to their religion and the religion of those that tended to their upringing yet at the same time believe that government, while influenced by these things, should not specifically force the participation of any particular religion upon its population.

Say I was raised growing up being told to respect my fellow man, due unto others as I'd wish to do unto myself, to not kill, to not steal, to not covet thy neighbors wife, to be charitable, to be chaste, etc. And, say I was raised this way due to the religious beliefs of those raising me. Then, later in life, I help establish government or live in a society where I push for those ideals to be made into law because that's what I believe in and think is right, but yet believe that the government should not tell people "You must go to chuch!" or "You must pray to [x] religion". Would that not be imparting be me imparting my foundation of religious belief into the government, while simulatenously striving for freedom to determine ones own religious practices?

How is that apparently not possible for you?

It doesn't seem logical at all to me. Based on the time that the founding was happened and that many of the people that were first citizens were from places that had mandatory state religions, I can CLEARLY see how its logical that the morals and views that were imparted to them due to their religious upbringing would find its way into the traditions and laws of this country while at the same time they would believe it was important that people could practice their own religions without interference or determination of what that religion is by the government.
 
Absolutely not. What you're saying is that its impossible for people to found something based on the ideals, principles, traditions, and morals that they have in large part due to their religion and the religion of those that tended to their upringing yet at the same time believe that government, while influenced by these things, should not specifically force the participation of any particular religion upon its population.

Say I was raised growing up being told to respect my fellow man, due unto others as I'd wish to do unto myself, to not kill, to not steal, to not covet thy neighbors wife, to be charitable, to be chaste, etc. And, say I was raised this way due to the religious beliefs of those raising me. Then, later in life, I help establish government or live in a society where I push for those ideals to be made into law because that's what I believe in and think is right, but yet believe that the government should not tell people "You must go to chuch!" or "You must pray to [x] religion". Would that not be imparting be me imparting my foundation of religious belief into the government, while simulatenously striving for freedom to determine ones own religious practices?

How is that apparently not possible for you?

It doesn't seem logical at all to me. Based on the time that the founding was happened and that many of the people that were first citizens were from places that had mandatory state religions, I can CLEARLY see how its logical that the morals and views that were imparted to them due to their religious upbringing would find its way into the traditions and laws of this country while at the same time they would believe it was important that people could practice their own religions without interference or determination of what that religion is by the government.

Once again, our laws are not based on religion, they are based on common human desire. it just so happens religion is based on the same thing. The desire came first, then religion.

It is because people came from places with mandatory state religions that they saw a need to omit it from the United States. That seems more logical to me. I suppose its all in how an individual views it.
 
Okay, going by a few posts I have to ask who forgot to announce the Westboro Baptist church was active on this site?
 
Once again, our laws are not based on religion, they are based on common human desire. it just so happens religion is based on the same thing. The desire came first, then religion.

I, and a great deal of philsophers, disagree with you that general the things found in religion or law as basic human nautre/desire.

Without societal influence I fully believe that man's general precondition is brutish, nasty, and short. Without any societal conditioning I believe humans are essentially more intelligent animals where the strong take and do what they wish at the detriment of the lesser. Its through joining together into a society with common views, norms, and laws that we move beyond this.

now, you can say its just "common human desire", and perhaps it is. However, HOW one comes about to learn these desires and have them ingrained in you is important.

I believe that if you take an individual and have the grow up in the wild and have another that grows up within a stable christian or jewish or even simply moral but agnostic family that you'll find a DISTINCT differnce between their societal views of what is right and moral. it would be fool hearty to say that the foundation of the views of said child growing up with the family did not come through the religion if that is the way it is taught and imparted to him.

Laws do not come from anything but men, who create them and vote for them. HOWEVER, why men agree with laws or why people concieve said laws comes about due to the societal makeup and actions that have occured throughout their entire life. As such, if religious views and morals were imparted in them and shape the way they view the world and what is right and wrong and as such thier view of what is right and wrong impacts the way in which they vote/create/adhere to laws and traditions, then it can be said that those religious views that were the foundation of their thoughts is then ALSO the foundation for the laws/traidions they had a hand in.
 
I, and a great deal of philsophers, disagree with you that general the things found in religion or law as basic human nautre/desire.

Without societal influence I fully believe that man's general precondition is brutish, nasty, and short. Without any societal conditioning I believe humans are essentially more intelligent animals where the strong take and do what they wish at the detriment of the lesser. Its through joining together into a society with common views, norms, and laws that we move beyond this.

now, you can say its just "common human desire", and perhaps it is. However, HOW one comes about to learn these desires and have them ingrained in you is important.

I believe that if you take an individual and have the grow up in the wild and have another that grows up within a stable christian or jewish or even simply moral but agnostic family that you'll find a DISTINCT differnce between their societal views of what is right and moral. it would be fool hearty to say that the foundation of the views of said child growing up with the family did not come through the religion if that is the way it is taught and imparted to him.

Laws do not come from anything but men, who create them and vote for them. HOWEVER, why men agree with laws or why people concieve said laws comes about due to the societal makeup and actions that have occured throughout their entire life. As such, if religious views and morals were imparted in them and shape the way they view the world and what is right and wrong and as such thier view of what is right and wrong impacts the way in which they vote/create/adhere to laws and traditions, then it can be said that those religious views that were the foundation of their thoughts is then ALSO the foundation for the laws/traidions they had a hand in.

If you take an individual who grew up in the wild, of course their moral are different. That is because they have a "common in the wild desire." That is not common human desire because there is no "common human" to speak of.
 
Back
Top Bottom