View Poll Results: Do you think the U.S. was intended to be a Christian Nation?

Voters
180. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 24.44%
  • No

    118 65.56%
  • other

    18 10.00%
Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3442434445 LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 446

Thread: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

  1. #431
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    AT best you could claim that it used to be that way but no longer is. Kind of like we used to have slavery but no longer tolerate it. In the present the legal understanding of the Constitution is that there is a separation of church and state. Believing that there is another definition since the word god was used in places (excluding the Constitution, which if to your claim had any real meaning god and jesus would be all over the Constitution which it isnt) is meaningless without the legal backing to prove your point.

    And as I pointed out our official history defines the separation of church and state as a main theme of the framers. Its a simple concept that the framers had though, if I want to ensure my right to believe in or not believe in whatever I want I must ensure that everyone has the same right as I do. The idea that this is a officially Christian Nation completely spits in the face of everyone that is not Christian and make the US sound more like the persecution that this countries forefathers tried to get away from.

    It is easy for a Christian to say that America is a Christian nation but for non-Christians it a threat to our freedoms and our liberties to enjoy the same opportunities that we were all born with citizens or by those that have made this their permanent home. Im not sure how any Christians can honestly ignore our rich diverse history without feeling a bit hypocritical when they insist that we are all supposed to be Christian's just because we are Americans. Again I am reminded of the middle east but that should not be a big surprise since that is the origin of Christianity not America.
    I never made the claim that it was an "officially Christian nation" , I simply pointed out the obvious. I believe that the original intent, and the Constitution states as much, was that the government would not be allowed to create a "state religion." I don't think anyone is in disagreement with this. We must, however, interpret history in its correct context, and understand that the vast majority of the earlist US citizens espoused Christianity. I fully accept that the Founders intended to protect the "free exercise" of any and ALL religions, and that neither Congress nor the states could legally establish a church. This does not, however, prevent the government from making references to God, and SHOULD NOT legally prevent any government official from openly espousing particular religious beliefs.....even those of Christianity. The secular movement, sadly, has attempted, quite successfully, to revise the original intent of the Founders to mean that ANY and ALL mention of God or of Christianity by public officials and in public institutions is in violation of the First Amendment.......this simply has no legal or Constituional basis.
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 09-25-12 at 11:48 PM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #432
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    This is a joke right? AT least I hope you are joking, considering that we did not write this treaty. Hell not even one American signed the damn thing. Lol
    A "treaty" must be agreed upon by both parties in order to be valid, correct? This was the version of the treaty YOU cited that was drafted by the Barbary States..................in essence, their counterpart to our treaty.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  3. #433
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Invalid as a legal treaty but the power of the Presidents seal backs the document as a legal document and you would need some legal proceeding to remove the legal significance of what is written in it. I am unaware of any court that has proven the information pertaining to the separation of church and state as being invalid information. In fact as I am sure that you there was a Supreme Court ruling that gave the document legal basis in determining the meaning of the 1st Amendment. You cannot just wish these things away because they do not go along with what you believe.
    This is just simply nonsense and you know it. You are obviously grasping for straws here. When Tripoli declared war on the US (in direct violation of the treaty) it INSTANTLY became null and void. Surely you're not going to deny this? :


    You asked for evidence that the treaty was not valid and it was provided..........now you're just going to sit there and blatantly ignore it? I just don't understand. :
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  4. #434
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    I never made the claim that it was an "officially Christian nation" , I simply pointed out the obvious. I believe that the original intent, and the Constitution states as much, was that the government would not be allowed to create a "state religion." I don't think anyone is in disagreement with this. We must, however, interpret history in its correct context, and understand that the vast majority of the earlist US citizens espoused Christianity. I fully accept that the Founders intended to protect the "free exercise" of any and ALL religions, and that neither Congress nor the states could legally establish a church. This does not, however, prevent the government from making references to God, and SHOULD NOT legally prevent any government official from openly esousing particular religious beliefs.....even those of Christianity. The secular movement, sadly, has attempted, quite successfully, to revise the original intent of the Founders to mean that ANY and ALL mention of God or of Christianity by public officials and in public institutions is in violation of the First Amendment.......this simply has no legal or Constituional basis.
    As I said the best that you could claim is that it used to be ok to promote your religion while in office or on public property but in lieu of the bad behavior of a few that type of activity is no longer acceptable nor legal.

    Let me point out again that I fully support Americans right to practice religion of not too. And let me also point out that outside of public office or off of public property no one is being stopped from the free exercise of any religion. And in some circumstances religion is allowed on public property and by those with a public office. I as an individual am not involved at all with any attempt to allegedly remove god from all aspects of public life. In other words I would appreciate that you would not tie me to the so called secular movement. admittedly I do support things like keeping god out of schools, and the removal of god from the pledge and our money and things like that. But its not like I am offended that people are believers in something. More often than not it is the religious that persecute Atheists and treat them as evil and immoral. What I see is that Atheists have finally been pissed on for too long and are rebelling against religion in general. Too bad though that they have become what they hate. I am disappointed that some Atheist have chosen to be assholes since it further destroys any chance of equality between Atheist and the religious. But then one must remember that there are alot of far Leftists that have really screwed up the image of Atheists all around the world. At any rate I am an individual with my own view of the world separate from any group. Yes I just said that I am a individualist not a collectivist. I know that you did not accuse me of some of these things but since you keep sounding like you are thinking it I thought I try to clear things up.

  5. #435
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    As I said the best that you could claim is that it used to be ok to promote your religion while in office or on public property but in lieu of the bad behavior of a few that type of activity is no longer acceptable nor legal.

    Let me point out again that I fully support Americans right to practice religion of not too. And let me also point out that outside of public office or off of public property no one is being stopped from the free exercise of any religion. And in some circumstances religion is allowed on public property and by those with a public office. I as an individual am not involved at all with any attempt to allegedly remove god from all aspects of public life. In other words I would appreciate that you would not tie me to the so called secular movement. admittedly I do support things like keeping god out of schools, and the removal of god from the pledge and our money and things like that. But its not like I am offended that people are believers in something. More often than not it is the religious that persecute Atheists and treat them as evil and immoral. What I see is that Atheists have finally been pissed on for too long and are rebelling against religion in general. Too bad though that they have become what they hate. I am disappointed that some Atheist have chosen to be assholes since it further destroys any chance of equality between Atheist and the religious. But then one must remember that there are alot of far Leftists that have really screwed up the image of Atheists all around the world. At any rate I am an individual with my own view of the world separate from any group. Yes I just said that I am a individualist not a collectivist. I know that you did not accuse me of some of these things but since you keep sounding like you are thinking it I thought I try to clear things up.
    You are correct. I do not know you and I'm certainly not accusing you of promoting, joining, or leading the secular movement.

    I was simply pointing out the legal flaws in several of your assertions and in the documentation which you've cited. The fact that you use some of the same flawed "legalities" as the general secular movement in an attempt to uphold the policy of strict separation of Church and State, may simply be coincidental.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  6. #436
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    This is just simply nonsense and you know it. You are obviously grasping for straws here. When Tripoli declared war on the US (in direct violation of the treaty) it INSTANTLY became null and void. Surely you're not going to deny this? :


    You asked for evidence that the treaty was not valid and it was provided..........now you're just going to sit there and blatantly ignore it? I just don't understand. :
    It was a trick question since I wanted to explain the legal validness of the document. And as I said the courts have confirmed that the document has legal definitions within it. Sure the treaty in the first place was pointless since it was made to appease the sultans to ensure safe shipping lines, but the document was completely legal for at least 8 years before it was changed.

  7. #437
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    You are correct. I do not know you and I'm certainly not accusing you of promoting, joining, or leading the secular movement.

    I was simply pointing out the legal flaws in several of your assertions and in the documentation which you've cited. The fact that you use some of the same flawed "legalities" as the general secular movement in an attempt to uphold the policy of strict separation of Church and State, may simply be coincidental.
    I dont really put a lot of significance behind the Tripoli treaty other than legally it was existent which has a certain amount reason for making the case for the separation of church and state..

    But ithe treaty is only one of many historical and legal evidence for the separation of church and state.

    Take this Supreme court ruling in 1879 for example. It is a early example of the historical case that I am talking about.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. [98 U.S. 145, 164] 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

  8. #438
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    It was a trick question since I wanted to explain the legal validness of the document. And as I said the courts have confirmed that the document has legal definitions within it. Sure the treaty in the first place was pointless since it was made to appease the sultans to ensure safe shipping lines, but the document was completely legal for at least 8 years before it was changed.
    It was an international treaty......it has zero legal implications in regards to US Constitutional law........Zilch! Since when have international treaties EVER been used as a basis for interpreting constitutionality? I'll give you a hint.....never. I really don't know what else to say on the matter..........other than this necroed thread has probably been drawn out much longer than was really necessary.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  9. #439
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I dont really put a lot of significance behind the Tripoli treaty other than legally it was existent which has a certain amount reason for making the case for the separation of church and state..

    But ithe treaty is only one of many historical and legal evidence for the separation of church and state.

    Take this Supreme court ruling in 1879 for example. It is a early example of the historical case that I am talking about.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. [98 U.S. 145, 164] 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
    Your hyperlink goes to the case :Reynolds vs. the US . This was the Supreme Court decision which basically said that a person's religious practices could not be used as a defense for violating established laws. The basis of this case was a Utah Mormon charged with bigamy. I don't even see how this relates to your assertion regarding the treaty nor how the quote you've pasted below the hyperlink even relates to the case which you've cited? Perhaps I am missing something? Or maybe it's just getting late.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  10. #440
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

    Who cares how or why the country was founded? What matters is what it is today, and can be tomorrow.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 44 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3442434445 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
  •