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.
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.
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/religion-philosophy/45204-science-religion-enemies-morality.html but I will not,........ yet.
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.