• 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!

Do you think this country was founded upon Christianity?

Do you think the U.S. was intended to be a Christian Nation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 19.4%

  • No

    Votes: 99 68.8%

  • other

    Votes: 17 11.8%
  • Total voters
    144
AlbqOwl said:
As something of a Biblical historian, I have been enjoying your posts. Most modern Bible experts have placed Genesis 1--the first creation story--as one of the latest of Old Testament documents most likley written during the disapora period - probably late sixth century or possibly even a bit later. This would have put it very close to the culture of early scientific thought that gave us Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and ultimately Aristotle. However, while the first chapter of Genesis was not exactly produced in a scientific vacuum, it was not intended to be scientific but rather was a pure doctrinal statement to illustrate that all that was, is, or will ever be comes from God. The second chapter of Genesis was one of the earliest manuscripts included in what we call the Old Testament.

None of this, however, addresses the question of whether the country was founded on Christian principles, but I have always held to concept that one cannot fully understand or appreciate the New Testament without a good grounding in the Old Testament as all the writers of the New Testament well knew and took the content of the Old Testament for granted and assumed their readers did so also. And so did the Founders in their Christian beliefs see that all that was, is, and will be comes from God, and founded this country on that belief and therefore the unalienable rights given by God would not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Holy cow what is up with all the Necromancy lately.... this thread was two years dead, why resurrect it now?


Zombie thread rises from the grave...


... wanders around DP: "Brains! Brains!!!"

.... then wanders off into the night, calling forlornly: "Brains? Brains???"

:mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
Holy cow what is up with all the Necromancy lately.... this thread was two years dead, why resurrect it now?


Zombie thread rises from the grave...


... wanders around DP: "Brains! Brains!!!"

.... then wanders off into the night, calling forlornly: "Brains? Brains???"

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Lazarus returns BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA
 
christian's arent perfect,but the ten commandments are probabley a little more tolerant than most other countries that will just go ahead and stone you on the spot.
 
mainstream12 said:
christian's arent perfect,but the ten commandments are probabley a little more tolerant than most other countries that will just go ahead and stone you on the spot.
Click to expand...

Most other countries will stone you on the spot? Really? I think you better fact check yourself on that one.
 
Goshin said:
Holy cow what is up with all the Necromancy lately.... this thread was two years dead, why resurrect it now?

Zombie thread rises from the grave...

... wanders around DP: "Brains! Brains!!!"

.... then wanders off into the night, calling forlornly: "Brains? Brains???"

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:D Sorry Zombie, but you are in the DP forums. You're going to starve :mrgreen:
 
mainstream12 said:
christian's arent perfect,but the ten commandments are probabley a little more tolerant than most other countries that will just go ahead and stone you on the spot.
Click to expand...

There are perhaps 3 or 4 countries that allow stoning... that is NOT "most".
 
BCR said:
I hear all the time that "this is a Christian Nation". Do you think this is so.
Click to expand...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."- Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Authored by Barlow, fully endorsed by Adams.
 
Hmm this poll is too simplistic.

Other.

The US was founded as a country in which freedom of religious practice was paramount, and the values of the founders had strong Christian roots.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Hmm this poll is too simplistic.

Other.

The US was founded as a country in which freedom of religious practice was paramount, and the values of the founders had strong Christian roots.
Click to expand...

Does that include witch burnings?
 
Goshin said:
Holy cow what is up with all the Necromancy lately.... this thread was two years dead, why resurrect it now?


Zombie thread rises from the grave...


... wanders around DP: "Brains! Brains!!!"

.... then wanders off into the night, calling forlornly: "Brains? Brains???"

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have been away from DP for awhile, this thread came up in my queue and I failed to note the date. Sorry about that. However its resurrection is generating some response so maybe it's all good?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Does that include witch burnings?
Click to expand...

Again drawing from history, the witch burnings were conducted by a tiny group of rigid fundamentalist Christians who had discontinued the practice by the early 18th Century. Certainly they were not practiced nor condoned by the large majority of Christians of that time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Again drawing from history, the witch burnings were conducted by a tiny group of rigid fundamentalist Christians who had discontinued the practice by the early 18th Century. Certainly they were not practiced nor condoned by the large majority of Christians of that time.
Click to expand...

The times have changed, for sure. Now, the christians pretend they are witches on All Saints' Day.
 
Surtr said:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."- Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. Authored by Barlow, fully endorsed by Adams.
Click to expand...

This was a meaningless treaty aimed at securing peace with the Barbary Pirates. Anyone who knows how to place historical events in their proper context knows this. It was nothing more than an attempt to put a peaceful end to raids on US shipping in the southern Mediterranean.................a "PR gimmick" if you will. While successful in placating the Barbary States, it had no real impact domestically and is now considered all but obsolete. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
This was a meaningless treaty aimed at securing peace with the Barbary Pirates. Anyone who knows how to place historical events in their proper context knows this. It was nothing more than an attempt to put a peaceful end to raids on US shipping in the southern Mediterranean.................a "PR gimmick" if you will. While successful in placating the Barbary States, it had no real impact domestically and is now considered all but obsolete. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's where "leathernecks" came from.:cool:
 
FluffyNinja said:
This was a meaningless treaty aimed at securing peace with the Barbary Pirates. Anyone who knows how to place historical events in their proper context knows this. It was nothing more than an attempt to put a peaceful end to raids on US shipping in the southern Mediterranean.................a "PR gimmick" if you will. While successful in placating the Barbary States, it had no real impact domestically and is now considered all but obsolete. :shrug:
Click to expand...

And can you site a source that proves your claim then?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
And can you site a source that proves your claim then?
Click to expand...

What kind of source would suffice? There really isn't going to be a document stating that they negate the Treaty since it is really an irrelevant and outdated document itself.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What kind of source would suffice? There really isn't going to be a document stating that they negate the Treaty since it is really an irrelevant and outdated document itself.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory but Jefferson reaffirmed what he said in the Dansbury letter during his second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.

“In matters of Religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” Jefferson Reaffirms Separation of Church and State - Transcription - *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

But there is evidence that shows the legal importance of the Danbury letter.

"In explaining to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving as his predecessors had done, President Thomas Jefferson asserted that the Constitution built a wall of separation between church and state. Jeffersons many deletions and emendations to this draft indicate the great care he used in phrasing his opinion."

A Wall of Separation between Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

ANd further proof that the Danbury letter was not just politics:

"Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)


The separation of church and state was a very controversial issue in the early years of the United States, when several New England states provided tax money for the support of Protestant churches. However, as he explains in this letter, President Thomas Jefferson was an ardent proponent of the separation of church and state, even to the point of opposing government-sponsored days of prayer and fasting.Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

Take not that every link here is to the Library of Congress. It would seem that officially the historians disagree with you.
 
Nope. Nope. Nope.

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Interesting theory but Jefferson reaffirmed what he said in the Dansbury letter during his second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.

“In matters of Religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” Jefferson Reaffirms Separation of Church and State - Transcription - *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

But there is evidence that shows the legal importance of the Danbury letter.

"In explaining to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving as his predecessors had done, President Thomas Jefferson asserted that the Constitution built a wall of separation between church and state. Jeffersons many deletions and emendations to this draft indicate the great care he used in phrasing his opinion."

A Wall of Separation between Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

ANd further proof that the Danbury letter was not just politics:

"Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)


The separation of church and state was a very controversial issue in the early years of the United States, when several New England states provided tax money for the support of Protestant churches. However, as he explains in this letter, President Thomas Jefferson was an ardent proponent of the separation of church and state, even to the point of opposing government-sponsored days of prayer and fasting.Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

Take not that every link here is to the Library of Congress. It would seem that officially the historians disagree with you.
Click to expand...

My question was in regards to the Treaty of Tripoli...

...I agree that there is a Separation of Church and State and that this nation is not a "Christian 'Nation'" but rather a nation comprised of mostly Christian people's...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Interesting theory but Jefferson reaffirmed what he said in the Dansbury letter during his second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.

“In matters of Religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.” Jefferson Reaffirms Separation of Church and State - Transcription - *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

But there is evidence that shows the legal importance of the Danbury letter.

"In explaining to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving as his predecessors had done, President Thomas Jefferson asserted that the Constitution built a wall of separation between church and state. Jeffersons many deletions and emendations to this draft indicate the great care he used in phrasing his opinion."

A Wall of Separation between Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

ANd further proof that the Danbury letter was not just politics:

"Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)


The separation of church and state was a very controversial issue in the early years of the United States, when several New England states provided tax money for the support of Protestant churches. However, as he explains in this letter, President Thomas Jefferson was an ardent proponent of the separation of church and state, even to the point of opposing government-sponsored days of prayer and fasting.Separation of Church and State*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)

Take not that every link here is to the Library of Congress. It would seem that officially the historians disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Here's the exact transcript of the introduction to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed and ratified in 1848............52 years AFTER the meaningless Treaty of Tripoli and 43 years AFTER Jefferson's PERSONAL letter which had NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE whatsoever. Looking at the wording of the treaty, one would assume that adoption of the principle of "Separation of Church and State" was far from a foregone conclusion in the US. Just saying. :shrug:

Transcript of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)

TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES CONCLUDED AT GUADALUPE HIDALGO, FEBRUARY 2, 1848; RATIFICATION ADVISED BY SENATE, WITH AMENDMENTS, MARCH 10, 1848; RATIFIED BY PRESIDENT, MARCH 16, 1848; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT QUERETARO, MAY 30, 1848; PROCLAIMED, JULY 4, 1848.

IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD

The United States of America and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Republics and to establish Upon a solid basis relations of peace and friendship, which shall confer reciprocal benefits upon the citizens of both, and assure the concord, harmony, and mutual confidence wherein the two people should live, as good neighbors have for that purpose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say: The President of the United States has appointed Nicholas P. Trist, a citizen of the United States, and the President of the Mexican Republic has appointed Don Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, Don Bernardo Couto, and Don Miguel Atristain, citizens of the said Republic; Who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full powers, have, under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace, arranged, agreed upon, and signed the following: Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic.
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
My question was in regards to the Treaty of Tripoli...

...I agree that there is a Separation of Church and State and that this nation is not a "Christian 'Nation'" but rather a nation comprised of mostly Christian people's...
Click to expand...

Lol oops my mistake you did say treaty. Sorry :3oops:
 
Is the United States a "Christian Nation"? No, sadly, I think not.

Was it founded upon the principles of Christianity, by men of whom the vast majority espoused Christian principles and clearly intended that many of these same principles be applied to the direction in which US public policy was going?.............Most certainly...........the vast preponderance of the evidence is there and indicates as much............at least to those who aren't blinded by the shroud of political correctness and the revisionism to which it leads. :shrug:
 
Bodhisattva said:
What kind of source would suffice? There really isn't going to be a document stating that they negate the Treaty since it is really an irrelevant and outdated document itself.
Click to expand...

Let me try this again but with relevance to your question.

What would suffice is something stating that the legal agreement of the treaty is now void. Beyond that something that indicates the legal stance of congress and the Constitution that states that there is no separation of church and state implied or intended.


Regardless of what people say in trying to marginalize the treaty it was a legal document none the less. Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Let me try this again but with relevance to your question.

What would suffice is something stating that the legal agreement of the treaty is now void. Beyond that something that indicates the legal stance of congress and the Constitution that states that there is no separation of church and state implied or intended.


Regardless of what people say in trying to marginalize the treaty it was a legal document none the less. Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually read the Arabic translation of the Treaty of Tripoli? Perhaps you should take a look and upon viewing it, you may change your mind about using it as a legal document to defend the principle of Separation of Church and State......the phrase "Praise be to God" is used about one hundred times.....:lol: Here is a link:

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 <BR> The Annotated Translation of 1930
 
FluffyNinja said:
Here's the exact transcript of the introduction to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed and ratified in 1848............52 years AFTER the meaningless Treaty of Tripoli and 43 years AFTER Jefferson's PERSONAL letter which had NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE whatsoever. Looking at the wording of the treaty, one would assume that adoption of the principle of "Separation of Church and State" was far from a foregone conclusion in the US. Just saying. :shrug:
Click to expand...

FluffyNinja said:
Is the United States a "Christian Nation"? No, sadly, I think not.

Was it founded upon the principles of Christianity, by men of whom the vast majority espoused Christian principles and clearly intended that many of these same principles be applied to the direction in which US public policy was going?.............Most certainly...........the vast preponderance of the evidence is there and indicates as much............at least to those who aren't blinded by the shroud of political correctness and the revisionism to which it leads. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What is the opposite of the phrase separation of church and state? The opposite would obviously be like this: the church and state are one. We are not talking about a sentence here or there or some religious phrases we are talking about a national church in effect a theocracy when we are talking about no separation between church and state. With no separation the church is part of the Government much like how things are in many countries in the middle east.


Personally I have no use for political correctness And I despise revisionism of history and reality. Add those two accusations together and obviously you think that I am an liberal, you are quite mistaken.

People can be religious and be in the Government after all the 1st Amendment protects that right. The reason that people are upset about religion and Government right now is because the religious Right keeps claiming that there is no separation of church and state. That assertion coupled with the other assertions that the religious Right make about true Americans are Christian's, well we just do not trust anyone anymore to not force a theocracy down our throats. And since it would be simple to prove my point by linking many Republican and Tea Party sites that promote the idea of an CHristian Nation while it is obvious that we are a melting pot of cultures where freedom of religion is the rule of the land where we are free to worship or not worship whatever we want, sorry if it offends you that I want freedom and liberty and not a theocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom