History Proves It: The Christianity of America’s Founders Was Deliberate, Pervasive, Crucial

  

Category:  History & Sociology

Via:  donald-j-trump-fan-1  •  6 months ago  •  117 comments

By:   Jake MacAulay

History Proves It: The Christianity of America’s Founders Was Deliberate, Pervasive, Crucial
Christianity formed the backdrop and substance of America’s founding. It is at the root of the successful system that has prospered this nation. If in doubt, compare the effects of the American Revolution with that of the anti-Christian French Revolution.

America unlike France was founded upon Christian principles.  Most of the founders were Christian.  They declared that our freedom to to pursue happiness and that our right to life and liberty extend from God himself to humanity.  They acknowledged Him as The Creator and Natures God.  They said the Republic they gave us would only work for a religious and moral people and that all morals and good come from God.  They prayed in government and made religious and God centered proclamations regularly and conducted church services in capital buildings.  They wanted no state religion or any one religion having power through government.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



John Dickinson, Revolutionary War general and signer of the Constitution, made the claim:

“[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.”

The Constitution concludes in the subscription clause with the words:

“In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven…” Often left out of the newer copies of the United States Constitution, this statement is a significant acknowledgement of the birth of Christ 1,787 years earlier. “Our Lord,” therefore, clearly refers to Jesus Christ.

In order to marginalize Christianity and the impact that it had on founding and governmental structure of America, my detractors will often assert, “Christianity was just a part of the times but it had no real critical relevance to the founding fathers and their struggle for independence. Why do you attach such significance to it? This was just the status quo during a time of political upheaval and revolutions.”

Well, no. Let’s contrast the “firm reliance on Divine Providence” the founders of America had with that of their contemporaries: the French revolutionaries.

Unlike the French, the Framers of our Constitution had no reservations about referring to Jesus Christ as “our Lord” and using His birth as the central event of history.

In fact, the French revolutionaries’ philosophies included a harsh enmity to Christianity and Christ’s Church. For example:

  • The French calendar replaced the birth of Christ with the birth of the French Republic.
  • God and Bible were proclaimed dead.
  • Christian Holy days were replaced with secular revolution days.
  • The Sabbath was eliminated and the workweek was extended to 10 days.
  • A nude woman was placed on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral.
  • Christianity and Christians experienced a persecution in France antithetical to the cherished support and partnership the American Revolution afforded to the Christian Church.  Contrasting the Biblical wisdom of our Founders with that of the French revolutionaries, one can quickly see the stability Christian thinking offers.

    In the same period of time, the United States has had one form of government. France has had over a dozen:

    • First Republic, 1789-1792
    • Reign of Terror, 1793-1794
    • The Directory, 1795-1799
    • Consulate, 1799-1804
    • First Empire, 1804-1814
    • New Monarchy, 1814-1815
    • Napoleon’s 100 Days, 1815
    • Monarchy, 1815-1848
    • Second Republic, 1848-1852
    • Second Empire, 1852-1870
    • Third Republic, 1871-1940
    • Vichy France, 1940-1944
    • Fourth Republic, 1947-1959
    • Fifth Republic, 1959-

    While comparing the American Revolution with France’s numerous revolutions, 13th President Millard Fillmore observed:

    “Our own free institutions were not the offspring of our Revolution. They existed before.

    “They were planted in the free charters of self-government under which the English colonies grew up, and our Revolution only freed us from the dominion of a foreign power whose government was at variance with those institutions.”  Fillmore concluded that:

    “Liberty unregulated by law degenerates into anarchy, which soon becomes the most horrid of all despotisms …

    “We owe these blessings, under Heaven, to the happy Constitution and Government which were bequeathed to us by our fathers, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit in all their integrity to our children.”

    Decades after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, in 1854 the United States Congress, House Judiciary Committee, reaffirmed those biblical principles that established American Independence with the exhortation:

    “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”  Our founders were deliberate in their foundation and construction of a free government system under the guidance of and supplication to Almighty God. To assume or say otherwise is just disingenuous.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
MAGA
1  seeder  MAGA    6 months ago

“Our own free institutions were not the offspring of our Revolution. They existed before.

“They were planted in the free charters of self-government under which the English colonies grew up, and our Revolution only freed us from the dominion of a foreign power whose government was at variance with those institutions.”   Fillmore concluded that:

“Liberty unregulated by law degenerates into anarchy, which soon becomes the most horrid of all despotisms …

“We owe these blessings, under Heaven, to the happy Constitution and Government which were bequeathed to us by our fathers, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit in all their integrity to our children.”

Decades after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, in 1854 the United States Congress, House Judiciary Committee, reaffirmed those biblical principles that established American Independence with the exhortation:

“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity…  https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49545/history-proves-it-the-christianity-of-americas-founders-was-deliberate-pervasive-crucial

 
 
 
evilgenius
2  evilgenius    6 months ago

More revisionist history by the persecution crowd?

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  evilgenius @2    6 months ago

Our founders were deliberate in their foundation and construction of a free government system under the guidance of and supplication to Almighty God. To assume or say otherwise is just disingenuous.  https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49545/history-proves-it-the-christianity-of-americas-founders-was-deliberate-pervasive-crucial#cm1258139

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  MAGA @2.1    6 months ago
Our founders were deliberate in their foundation and construction of a free government system under the guidance of and supplication to Almighty God.

Not really. They mostly believed that men and the world turn according to Natural Law not Divine Will. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Ethan Allen were Deists. It was popular in the colleges of their day. Franklin publicly doubted the Divinity of Christ and Jefferson rewrote the NT omitting the Biblical miracles which he considered myth. George Washington rarely spoke of religion and rarely attended church services. He most often attended to business or hunting on Sundays. I could go on, but you won

To assume or say otherwise is just disingenuous. 

Do some real reading. Actually read it and understand it within the context of when and how those men lived. Start with Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke published in 1689. Move on to An Essay Concerning Human Understanding published by Locke in 1689. The writings of Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and other philosophers of the time were central to how many of our learned founders thought. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @2.1    6 months ago

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  MAGA @2.1    5 months ago
Our founders were deliberate in their foundation and construction of a free government system under the guidance of and supplication to Almighty God. To assume or say otherwise is just disingenuous. 

Total bullshit

George Washington may have said it best, if not first: “Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” To prevent such controversies, Washington ordered Continental Army commanders “to protect and support the free exercise…and undisturbed enjoyment of…religious matters."

* * * *

Most of America’s Founding Fathers echoed Franklin’s beliefs. America’s fourth President, James Madison was raised an Anglican and was a cousin of Virginia’s Episcopal bishop. But he was a fierce proponent of church-state separation and fathered the Bill of Rights, whose opening words outlawed government “establishment of religion” and any prohibition of “the free exercise thereof.” Both Congress and  all  the states agreed. 

* * * *

Even the devout, church-going Congregationalist John Adams, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, inked his presidential signature on the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli affirming to Americans and the world that “the United States is not, in any sense, a Christian nation.” The 23 members present in the U.S. Senate (out of 32) ratified the document unanimously. 

* * * *

Indeed, each of the nation’s three founding documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution—carefully avoided all mention of Christianity or Christ. Article VI of the Constitution states as dramatically as possible, that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” –hardly the hallmark of a “Christian” nation.  

To reaffirm America’s  not  becoming a Christian nation, Congress and  all  the states added the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, reiterating the nation’s areligious character by barring government establishment of any and all religion.

What is it that makes some christians refuse to at least research the truth, and what makes some christians lie so easily?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
2.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.2    5 months ago
"The Day Democracy Died"

This is wonderful!

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  evilgenius @2    5 months ago
When acquiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [ Muslims ], Jews , or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists." [50]

- George Washington.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.3  SteevieGee  replied to  evilgenius @2    5 months ago
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 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 to man all his natural rights , convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

- Thomas Jefferson.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3  Sparty On    6 months ago

Oh this ought to be a good one .....

 
 
 
katrix
3.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @3    6 months ago

I have to admit - it would be hilarious if assholes like this author weren't actively seeking to force Christian Dominionism onto us, and to discriminate against those who don't share their perverted view of religion.

The idea that morality comes from a god always baffles me. Why are some people unable to behave morally unless they believe some god is going to reward them or punish them accordingly? And why would these people openly admit that they have no morality?

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.2  katrix  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    6 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  katrix @3.1.2    6 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.4  katrix  replied to  MAGA @3.1.3    6 months ago

You have specifically said, on numerous occasions, that offending liberals and secular people is a goal of yours.

That, to me, is not the mark of a decent human being - deliberately trying to piss off people who have a different ideology and world view than you do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @3.1.4    6 months ago

'You have specifically said, on numerous occasions, that offending liberals and secular people is a goal of yours.'

That seems to be the only goal of a few posters here on NewsTalkers.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @3.1    6 months ago

Lol..... that’s a good one ..... Christian Dominionism.     Better tell all the folks freely practicing other religions or no religion at all right now throughout the USA.    This would be good information for them to know.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.6    6 months ago

Blue Laws are still a thing in some states.

Christian Dominionism.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.7    6 months ago

“Dominionism” doesn’t even begin to describe what goes on in most of the country.    Most Americans don’t feel that way, hell most Christians in the US don’t feel that way.

If there is any Dominionism going on today it’s largely Atheists and other non-believers pushing their secular only agenda with no exceptions allowed.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.8    6 months ago
hell most Christians in the US don’t feel that way.

I never said they did.  Unfortunately, some do.  They're the ones who want prayers before public high school football games (Christian only, of course), prayers before city council meetings (again Christian only), and Bible classes in public schools.  They're the ones who want to make the Bible the official book of a state, and teach creationism (Christian version only.  Seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?) in public schools, while preventing the teaching of evolution.

Atheists and other non-believers pushing their secular only agenda with no exceptions allowed.

The only agenda atheists and other nonbelievers have is separation of church and state.  Some Dominionists just don't like that it applies to them the same as it applies to the religions they don't like.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.9    6 months ago
and teach creationism (Christian version only.  Seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?) in public schools, while preventing the teaching of evolution.

Are they not also the ones who claim evolution is pseudoscience and a conspiracy put forth by godless scientists?

The only agenda atheists and other nonbelievers have is separation of church and state.  

So did the Founding Fathers. And that is a good thing.

Some Dominionists just don't like that it applies to them the same as it applies to the religions they don't like. I've actually heard some "Christians" say separation does not apply to Christianity (they also think the US is based on "Christian principles," the bible, or is a "Christian nation), only to all other religions.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.9    6 months ago
I never said they did.

i never said you did

  Unfortunately, some do.  They're the ones who want prayers before public high school football games (Christian only, of course),

So what?    No one is being forced to participate.    So don’t participate but we can’t have anyone doing anything an Atheist disagrees with now can we.    Dominionism

prayers before city council meetings (again Christian only), and Bible classes in public schools.

See above and I don’t remember any bible classes in our public schools.    Never happened yet.

  They're the ones who want to make the Bible the official book of a state, and teach creationism (Christian version only.

BS .... few if any public schools AREN’T teach evolution.    

Seems to be a pattern here, doesn't there?) in public schools, while preventing the teaching of evolution.

Reactionary nonsense.    Never happen no matter how loud some whine that it will.

The only agenda atheists and other nonbelievers have is separation of church and state.  Some Dominionists just don't like that it applies to them the same as it applies to the religions they don't like

More BS ..... Some Atheists just want to control behavior of others that are not of like mind not the other way around.   Very totalitarian of them or in your words Dominionistic.

The squeakiest wheel in this debate are nonbelievers try to tell believers what they can and can’t do.     Most believers could care less what nonbeliever think and have no desire to tell them or force to do anything but if me or mine want to take a knee before or after a public ball game no Atheist is going to tell me we can’t.

They could try but it wouldn’t end well for them if they persist because I really don’t give a shit what they think when it comes to me and mine.     None of their business no matter how loud they whine using their usual rationalizations.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.11    6 months ago
So what?

State actors.  The school is promoting religion.  One religion in particular.

but we can’t have anyone doing anything an Atheist disagrees with now can we.

And if I cross the state line into West Virginia, I can't buy beer on Sundays until afternoon.  Because some Christians don't like it.  Until 2 years ago, hunters couldn't hunt on Sundays in WV, even on their own land.  Because some Christians thought it was wrong.

That's Dominionism.

I don’t remember any bible classes in our public schools.

While Steenbergen was urging students to draw lessons from the Bible here in southern Kentucky, students in Paducah — halfway across the state — were reading from the Gospels as well, in a classroom where they drew pictures of the cross and of Adam and Eve walking with dinosaurs, hanging them on the walls. Scenes of Bible classes in public school could become increasingly common across the United States if other states follow Kentucky’s lead in passing legislation that encourages high schools to teach the Bible.

few if any public schools AREN’T teach evolution.

It’s no wonder, then, that a majority of high school biology teachers, while not outright teaching creationism/ID, tend to avoid or weaken coverage of evolution in the classroom. The 2007 survey of biology teachers found that a majority, what the survey’s authors call the “cautious 60%,” are exposing their students to another kind of science miseducation. These teachers either opt not to cover evolution at all, or send their students a mixed message. They might “present both sides,” “encourage debate,” or otherwise give the impression that creationism and evolution are equally scientifically valid. While this misrepresentation of science may not be as egregious as outright advocacy for creationism/ID, it is nevertheless highly problematic and it affects about 2 million high school biology students a year.

And anyway, it's the attempt, Sparty.  There are people actively trying to get their religious views taught in public schools, with taxpayer dollars, to a captive audience.  And some of them are succeeding.

That's an example of Christian Dominionism.  The fact that you are apparently unaware that it's happening, or choose to downplay it, does not mean it's not happening.

Some Atheists just want to control behavior of others

I'm providing examples, with links.  How about you, Sparty?  What atheists are asking for taxpayers to foot the bill for teaching that there is no god?  The only example I can think of is the Satanic Temple advocating for after-school Satan clubs, but they only do that in response to Dominionism.

no Atheist is going to tell me we can’t

Straw man and faux outrage.  No atheist has any intention of telling you that you can't pray before or after a game.  Unless you're a public teacher leading students in prayer at the time, in which case, you would be acting in opposition to the First Amendment.

 
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.10    6 months ago
I've actually heard some "Christians" say separation does not apply to Christianity (they also think the US is based on "Christian principles," the bible, or is a "Christian nation), only to all other religions.

I know one pastor who says that "freedom of religion" means you get to choose which denomination of Christianity you want to follow, and thinks that the Founding Fathers didn't know that Islam existed.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.15  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.12    6 months ago

The label is applied primarily toward groups of  Christians in the United States .

Prominent adherents of these ideologies are otherwise theologically diverse, including  Calvinist   Christian reconstructionism Roman Catholic   Integralism Charismatic / Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology New Apostolic Reformation , and others. Most of the contemporary movements labeled dominion theology arose in the 1970s from religious movements asserting aspects of  Christian nationalism .

Some have applied the term  dominionist  more broadly to the whole  Christian right . This usage is controversial. There are concerns from members of these communities that this is a  label  being used to  marginalize  Christians from  public discourse .   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.15    6 months ago

And?

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.17  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.16    6 months ago

this (dominionism)is a   label   being used to  marginalize   Christians from   public discourse  .   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.17    6 months ago

That is the opinion of some.

Those Christians who do not attempt to intrude their beliefs on others have nothing to worry about.  The ones who can't keep their noses to themselves marginalize others (nonbelievers in particular), and ought instead to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. 

Hell, some Christians claim that Christians who have different political beliefs from themselves aren't really Christians.  Some Christians marginalize other Christians.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.17    6 months ago

No, it identifies Christians who have no respect for the constitution, especially with respect to the separation of church and state. Clearly there are Christians who want to replace the Constitution with the bible and establish a Christian theocracy. David Barton and the Wallbuilders immediately comes to mind. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.11    6 months ago
No one is being forced to participate.    

Irrelevant. Public schools are not a platform for religion.

So don’t participate but we can’t have anyone doing anything an Atheist disagrees with now can we.    Dominionism

It's called respecting the separation of church and state.

 I don’t remember any bible classes in our public schools.    Never happened yet.

Not for lack of trying though. There are attempts to do just that. And it has been done before, and also deemed unconstitutional, notably in the landmark SCOTUS case: School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), "the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (8–1) that legally or officially mandated Bible reading or prayer in public schools is unconstitutional...."

 Some Atheists just want to control behavior of others that are not of like mind not the other way around.   Very totalitarian of them or in your words Dominionistic.

How are atheists controlling anyone's behavior exactly? It sounds as if your reply is "reactionary nonsense."

but if me or mine want to take a knee before or after a public ball game no Atheist is going to tell me we can’t.

No one is saying you can't. Only that it cannot be led by a school or school official.

They could try but it wouldn’t end well for them if they persist because I really don’t give a shit what they think when it comes to me and mine.

As long as you're not part of the school's staff, then no one cares what you do.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.21  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.18    6 months ago

Those who use the term dominionism or dominionists to describe virtually all conservative or evangelical Christians are in fact attempting to marginalize us in the public square by the use of that sweeping generalization against all of us for the beliefs of a very few

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.21    6 months ago
Those who use the term dominionism or dominionists to describe virtually all conservative or evangelical Christians are in fact attempting to marginalize us

Complain to those who are using it that way.  They're not here.

I would say that telling those whose political beliefs disqualify them from being Christians is also a sweeping generalization, and marginalizing.  I guess whether it bothers you depends on who's doing the marginalizing, hmm?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.20    6 months ago
Irrelevant. Public schools are not a platform for religion.

Relevent since they aren’t.    Public schools aren’t parochial schools no matter how hard you try to say it’s so

It's called respecting the separation of church and state.

We have no official state religion just like the founders wanted.    Case closed.

Not for lack of trying though. There are attempts to do just that. And it has been done before, and also deemed unconstitutional, notably in the landmark SCOTUS case: School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), "the legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (8–1) that legally or officially mandated Bible reading or prayer in public schools is unconstitutional...."

57 years ago?     Sounds like a real bad problem.    You should be afraid, very afraid ..... the Bible thumpers are coming for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.    No doubt about it.

How are atheists controlling anyone's behavior exactly?

Try stopping me or mine from taking a knee and find out.

No one is saying you can't.

Damn straight, not specifically true for true nonbelievers but I’ll take you for your word on it.

Along as you're not part of the school's staff, then no one cares what you do.

Just one more reason public schools are are shrinking in size, failing and schools of choice are on the rise but hey, the Atheists feel better about it so all is well in the world according to them

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.23    6 months ago
Try stopping me or mine from taking a knee and find out.

You keep posting this vague threat in response to something that isn't happening.  It's a bit sad.  You accuse us of being reactionary?

Just one more reason public schools are are shrinking in size, failing and

Public schools are failing because school employees aren't praying?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.24    6 months ago

Not vague and not a threat but I’m sure that is exactly what you see it as since you are clearly threatened by it.

Telling, very telling.

Public schools are failing because school employees aren't praying?

Your words not mine.    My meaning was clear.    People leave when freedom and choices are limited.   Searching out other options that don’t limit such freedoms

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.25    6 months ago
Not vague and not a threat

Sure, sure.

People leave when freedom and choices are limited.

Freedom to do what, exactly?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.23    6 months ago
Relevent since they aren’t.    Public schools aren’t parochial schools no matter how hard you try to say it’s so

When school staff attempt to lead students in prayer, then they cross that line.

We have no official state religion just like the founders wanted.    Case closed.

Separation encompasses more than just the establishment of a state religion.

57 years ago?     Sounds like a real bad problem

A landmark SCOTUS case which is still in effect. And since we still have religious groups trying to push their brand of BS into schools to some degree, it is clearly still a problem.

Try stopping me or mine from taking a knee and find out.

Is that supposed to be a threat? It doesn't answer my question.

Damn straight, not specifically true for true nonbelievers but I’ll take you for your word on it.

How so?  What part of "No one is saying you can't" was unclear?

Just one more reason public schools are are shrinking in size, failing and schools of choice are on the rise but hey, the Atheists feel better about it so all is well in the world according to them

WHat does the status of public school have to do with anything? Or are you seriously trying to imply some correlation between prayer and school success?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.26    6 months ago
Sure, sure.

Very good, now you’re getting it.

Freedom to do what, exactly?

No further point to this conversation, I’ve said my piece.    I’ll leave you knowing that I disagree with you two on this topic completely and absolutely.

Enjoy!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.28    6 months ago
No further point to this conversation

Nope, not when you won't own your words, ignore facts ("I don't remember any Bible classes in school."), and make intentionally vague claims ("That's why public schools are failing").  That's not conducive to an honest discussion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.29    6 months ago
That's not conducive to an honest discussion.

It is conducive to intellectual dishonesty though.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.31  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.30    6 months ago

Please be civil and not accuse others we disagree with of being less than honest in the beliefs they have expressed  on both sides.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.31    6 months ago
Please be civil and not accuse others we disagree with of being less than honest in the beliefs they have expressed  on both sides.

What beliefs? Affirmative statements were given and challenged. So check it again. I didn't question the honesty of anyone's beliefs. Only the honesty of their statements and debate tactics.  As the seeder, don't you bear some responsibility for maintaining some form of impartialness in a discussion between others and challenge such tactics that are questionable (as Sandy pointed out) rather than defending them?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.33  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.29    6 months ago
Nope, not when you won't own your words

Nah can't let that go.  

I own everything i say.   To the Nth degree.  

That fact that you disagree with it, and/or constantly attempt to obfuscate what was or wasn't said, on an internet debate stage, is inconsequential to anything in my sphere of influence.   It is meaningless to me but apparently not to folks who seem to have a pathological need have to pontificate endlessly on NT.    I'm not one of those when there is no point to it.   Which in this case there wasn't IMO but If you have a specific question for me, that hasn't already been answered her, feel free to ask.   Otherwise keep the disingenuous nonsense to a minimum please.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.34  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.27    6 months ago
When school staff attempt to lead students in prayer, then they cross that line.

According to one of the most controversial decisions, of a VERY liberal SCOTUS, in history.   Thus leading to the infringement of religious first amendment freedoms for some ever since.

Separation encompasses more than just the establishment of a state religion.

It was the basic original intent.   Any student of the US Constitution knows that if they are being honest.   It's since been bastardized by the willing into something else entirely.

A landmark SCOTUS case which is still in effect. And since we still have religious groups trying to push their brand of BS into schools to some degree, it is clearly still a problem.

One persons landmark is another persons travesty.   See above.

Is that supposed to be a threat? It doesn't answer my question.

I don't make threats and your question was answered.   I was clear that one would not stop me from exercising my first amendment rights.   One could try but one would fail..

How so?  What part of "No one is saying you can't" was unclear?

If i'm the teacher you're stopping from praying, you are.

WHat does the status of public school have to do with anything? Or are you seriously trying to imply some correlation between prayer and school success?

That is clear as well to anyone who has seriously studied this issue.   Public schools are losing out to schools of choice for many reasons.   Religious freedom is one of them but make no mistake.   Public schools are shrinking while schools of choice are growing.   That in spite of all the efforts from the left to make them not succeed while doing everything in their power to prop up Public schools.

Which is very telling in and of itself ....

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.34    6 months ago
I don't make threats and your question was answered.   I was clear that one would not stop me from exercising my first amendment rights.   One could try but one would fail..

Nope. The question wasn't whether anyone could stop you exercising your first amendment rights. Here's the exchange:

Some Atheists just want to control behavior of others that are not of like mind not the other way around.   Very totalitarian of them or in your words Dominionistic. How are atheists controlling anyone's behavior exactly?

Your [deleted] didn't answer that question Sparty. Whatever may or may not  happen to you or yours if you took a knee isn't responsive. Deflecting from state actors to private actors is merely a deflection. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dulay @3.1.35    6 months ago

Thank you.  I knew it was apparent to more folks than me and Gordy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @3.1.35    6 months ago

Yeah, nothing [removed for context] about it but it is just like an Atheist to attempt to hide behind a decades old, controversial, ultra liberal SCOTUS ruling.

If you support this ruling, you support controlling others behavior since you don't want them to pray in school if they so choose.   A CLEAR infringement of the religious freedom supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment regardless of what was ruled by SCOTUS nearly six decades ago.  

Claiming ANYTHING else is just the nonsensical [deleted] partisans.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.38  Sparty On  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.36    6 months ago

Apparent only to the biased ..... yep.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.37    6 months ago
Yeah, nothing [removed for context] about it but it is just like an Atheist to attempt to hide behind a decades old, controversial, ultra liberal SCOTUS ruling.

You're deflecting again Sparty. You did NOT answer the question so stop insisting that you did. 

If you support this ruling, you support controlling others behavior since you don't want them to pray in school if they so choose. A CLEAR infringement of the religious freedom supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment regardless of what was ruled by SCOTUS nearly six decades ago.

If you are talking about the School District of Abington Township v. Schempp case, you obviously don't have a fucking clue what the case was about. 

Oh and BTFW, WHEN the ruling was made is irrelevant since the Constitution hasn't changed one bit since then. You're all about 'textualism' right?  

Claiming ANYTHING else is just the nonsensical [deleted partisans.]

The fact that you hold and unfounded and uninformed opinion doesn't make my comment nonsensical OR partisan. 

Now, how about you answer the question, if you can. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.38    6 months ago
Apparent only to the biased ..... yep.

Are you claiming to lack any form of bias Sparty? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @3.1.39    6 months ago

This always ends the same with you.   [deleted]

So i'll go back to my intuition from yesterday ...... which was 100% spot on.

3.1.28

I’ll leave you knowing that I disagree with you THREE on this topic completely and absolutely.

Have a nice day!

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.42  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.32    6 months ago

So if not our different beliefs and opinions, what is it that is conductive to intellectual dishonesty as you stated?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  MAGA @3.1.42    6 months ago

Don't bother, you are wasting your time.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.44  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.41    6 months ago

Well said and right on!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.41    6 months ago
I’ll leave you knowing that I disagree with you THREE on this topic completely and absolutely.

I hope you also know that your disagreement is uninformed and unsubstantiated. 

Have a nice day!

Cooking today, always do. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.46  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @3.1.45    6 months ago
I hope you also know that your disagreement is uninformed and unsubstantiated.

I disagree adamantly but there is no point to discussing it any further.   There will no be agreement in any way.

Cooking today, always do

Well now, that is just fantastic to hear.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.46    6 months ago
I disagree adamantly but there is no point to discussing it any further.

You haven't articulated what that adamant disagreement is based on Sparty. It's clear that you don't understand the SCOTUS ruling that you decry. Perhaps it would behoove you to go READ the ruling before you make the kneejerk decision to be against it. 

One thing I can assure you of is that it does NOT preclude anyone from praying in school or at a football game. So plant your knee in the trash in the stands and pray away. Just don't block the aisle. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.48  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.42    6 months ago

I, and to a greater extent, Sandy, already explained it.

Also, post 3.1.43 and your following reply is a perfect example too.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.49  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.33    6 months ago
I own everything i say. Try stopping me or mine from taking a knee and find out - Sparty

You keep posting this vague threat - sandy

Not vague and not a threat 

Doesn't sound much like "owning" your words to me. If some atheist told you "Try stopping us from removing religion from schools and find out" you wouldn't consider that "vague" (nothing specific) or threatening? What else is meant by "find out" if not a threat to take action against those who oppose you? Or do you really want to play the "well 'find out' could mean anything, like you'll 'find out' I don't do anything to the atheists who I believe are trying to control me"?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.50  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.34    6 months ago
According to one of the most controversial decisions, of a VERY liberal SCOTUS, in history.   Thus leading to the infringement of religious first amendment freedoms for some ever since.

How is religious freedoms infringed upon exactly? People can freely pray in school on their own time, including students. But public schools are not religious venues and school staff are not supposed to lead or advocate religion in school. That's not infringing on anyone's freedoms. That's maintaining the separation of church and state.

It was the basic original intent.   Any student of the US Constitution knows that if they are being honest.   It's since been bastardized by the willing into something else entirely.

Any student of the US Constitution is probably far better versed on it and its intention than you apparently. The Constitution clearly advocates for a separation of church and state. Religious freedom is only possible because of that. Even the Founding Fathers knew that and the SCOTUS even affirmed in in multiple cases throughout the court's history.

One persons landmark is another persons travesty.  

So sorry the US is not a theocracy then.

I don't make threats and your question was answered.

No, it wasn't! It dodged the question. In fact, you've dodged several questions now.

  I was clear that one would not stop me from exercising my first amendment rights.   One could try but one would fail..

And I was clear that no one was doing that.

If i'm the teacher you're stopping from praying, you are.

If you're the teacher and you're leading students in prayer during school time or functions, then you're violating the Constitution. 

That is clear as well to anyone who has seriously studied this issue.  

Condescending remark without any basis.

If you support this ruling, you support controlling others behavior since you don't want them to pray in school if they so choose.   A CLEAR infringement of the religious freedom supposedly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment regardless of what was ruled by SCOTUS nearly six decades ago.  

Then you are utterly clueless about the issues and legal cases, including the SCOTUS rulings on this matter. Otherwise, see first statement.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @3.1.47    5 months ago

Yawn.    It’s clear your biases are clouding your reasoning once again.     It’s boring, so I suggest you work on a new shtick.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.49    5 months ago

Nah, I own everything I say and them some but you keep on pontificating now ya hear!

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.53  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.50    5 months ago

You are certainly entitled to you opinions Gordy but make no mistake, that’s all they are.     Opinions.      Opinions that I have clearly and succinctly disagreed with here several times.

As I have also stated here several times, further discussion yields diminishing returns for anything but feeding egos which I for one have no need to do.    So proceed if you wish.    I’m not going to agreed with anything you say on this topic.    

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.54  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.53    5 months ago
You are certainly entitled to you opinions Gordy but make no mistake, that’s all they are.

No, I've stated facts.

 Opinions that I have clearly and succinctly disagreed with here several times.

That's your prerogative. 

As I have also stated here several times, further discussion yields diminishing returns for anything but feeding egos which I for one have no need to do.    So proceed if you wish.    I’m not going to agreed with anything you say on this topic. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

This is exactly the type of intellectual dishonesty I pointed out to DJTf1. You make vague statements and assertions, with nothing to back them up, much less refute anything presented to you. You repeatedly dodge questions and when challenged further, you bail. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.54    5 months ago
No, I've stated facts.

Nope, still just your opinions

 
This is exactly the type of intellectual dishonesty I pointed out to DJTf1.

Save your lectures for someone who really cares about your opinion on this matter Gordy as i do not.

Not in the least.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.56  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.55    5 months ago

I've cited relevant cases to support my facts whereas you've offered nothing of value. And for someone who doesn't care about opinions (or facts for that matter), it's funny that you keep responding.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.57  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.56    5 months ago
I've cited relevant cases to support my facts whereas you've offered nothing of value

Another opinion ...... yawn!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.58  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.57    5 months ago

Ithe seems you didn't bother reading my earlier post where I cited actual  legal cases/issues. Those are facts. While you have yet to present any.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.59  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.51    5 months ago
 It’s clear your biases are clouding your reasoning once again.     It’s boring, so I suggest you work on a new shtick.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    6 months ago
Decades after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, in 1854 the United States Congress, House Judiciary Committee, reaffirmed those biblical principles that established American Independence with the exhortation: “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”  Our founders were deliberate in their foundation and construction of a free government system under the guidance of and supplication to Almighty God. To assume or say otherwise is just disingenuous.

Apparently this is the grand finale of this somewhat far fetched pleading. 

In 1854 the United States Congress, House Judiciary Committee, reaffirmed those biblical principles that established American Independence with the exhortation “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity…...............

This was 166 years ago, during a time when it was legal in the United States, and with the blessing of the government, to own other human beings as property.  Why should we take some committee hearing from 166 years ago as a final word about anything? 

It's bad enough that we have to listen endlessly to "Christians" demanding that we elect politicians willing to cater to them, it's even worse when they try to claim that the United States is somehow "required" to follow biblical principles because thats what people who lived 250 years ago wanted. 

The 'religion' of a nation is what the people alive TODAY say it is,  not what religious beliefs were 250 years ago. 

I am a Christian, and I do believe in God, but enough is enough.  We have a very reasonable and necessary separation of church and state. 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @4    6 months ago

This isn’t about Church and state.  We are almost all for a degree of it.  Jefferson who later coined the phrase held church services in the capitol building.  Separation is about not having a state church like other countries and to prevent any religious group from using the power of government to advance their orthodoxy over others and to prevent the government from dominating or having a position of power over religion and belief by taxation or compelling in free exercise matters.  It was never about preventing people from praying or talking about God in the public square.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1    6 months ago
Separation is about not having a state church like other countries and to prevent any religious group from using the power of government to advance their orthodoxy over others and to prevent the government from dominating or having a position of power over religion and belief by taxation or compelling in free exercise matters.

Separation works both ways too: religion/religious groups cannot influence or dictate government policy and law.

 It was never about preventing people from praying or talking about God in the public square.  

No one ever said it was.

We are almost all for a degree of it. 

Only "almost?"

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    6 months ago

No one but the people through their representatives can dictate law or a vote of 5 black robes. Religious groups and individuals most certainly can speak out and do influence US and state laws.  

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.1    6 months ago

Almost nothing in this country is unanimous.  So yes, almost all the people of the country do favor separation of church and state to some degree.  The real divide is over the extent of that degree of separation 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.4  katrix  replied to  MAGA @4.1.3    6 months ago
The real divide is over the extent of that degree of separation 

Exactly. People like you want to remove much of that separation, so you are legally allowed to discriminate against and persecute people who don't share your irrational literalist views. Sounds nothing like what Jesus preached, but there you go.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1.3    6 months ago

To be effective,  separation must be absolute, as was originally intended.  Many people clearly do not respect the concept and boundary of separation, which is a problem. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1.2    6 months ago

It doesn't matter. Any law passedegree must also pass Constitutional muster, including the Lemon Test, lest it is challenged & struck down as unconstitutional. Bills can be proposed for laws, but they cannot be based or influenced by religion. There has to be a secular purpose or basis.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @4.1    6 months ago
It was never about preventing people from praying or talking about God in the public square.  

The issue is that you want the 'public square' to include EVERYWHERE and you want to deny any pushback or consequences. 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.8  katrix  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    6 months ago

And he wants to be able to put up his Christian symbols in the public square, and have the Christian origin myth taught in schools - but he would have a fit if another religion got that kind of preference.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    6 months ago

Nailed it!

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.10  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.6    6 months ago

It is not hard most of the time to find a secular purpose for laws that also satisfy religious needs or beliefs 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.11  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.9    6 months ago
 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1.11    6 months ago

Nails what? More instagram BS? How comical.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1.10    6 months ago

While that's possible, as long as the basis & purpose of the laws meet secular requirements, then there's no problem. 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.14  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.12    6 months ago

You’re opposed to tolerance then ?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @4.1.14    6 months ago

No, I'm opposed to BS! Much like your Instagram BS!

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @4    6 months ago

So do you discount and de legitimate the entire history of our country and all who lived in it and founded it between 1776-1861?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  MAGA @4.2    6 months ago

The Constitution is the framework for our government, and generally it has worked well for all these years. 

That is our point of gratitude towards the Founding Fathers,  nothing to do with what their religious beliefs were. 

The Constitution not only does not recommend a state religion, it forbids it. 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    6 months ago

No one is asking for a state religion.  The constitution was complete in the Year of Our Lord 1787 and because of His influences in it it has served a religious and moral upright  people well.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  MAGA @4.2.2    6 months ago
The phrase “Year of our Lord,” which is the only reference to God in the United States Constitution, was, of course, a standard eighteenth-century way of referencing the date.  It reminds us that the Constitution was written in a different world than our own. Today we do not usually refer to the date this way.  In the eighteenth century they did.  The past is indeed a foreign country. https://thewayofimprovement.com/2011/05/31/the-u-s-constitution-and-the-year-of-our-lord/

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    6 months ago
Christianity formed the backdrop and substance of America’s founding.

Given the history of Christianity, that's an embarrassment.  Good thing it's WRONG.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    6 months ago
Good thing it's WRONG.

It's also demonstrably false! 

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    6 months ago

It is neither wrong nor false.  We call it the truth. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @5.1.1    6 months ago

Just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
5.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  MAGA @5.1.1    5 months ago
We call it the truth

Some of us, most of us, call it bullshit. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6  Dismayed Patriot    6 months ago

"The Christianity of America’s Founders Was Deliberate, Pervasive, Crucial "...

… just like slavery. We wouldn't be who we are without it, but thank goodness we were able to change and overcome some founders horrid mistreatment of fellow humans and such blatant discrimination against those with different skin color or different faiths. And thankfully the founders were smart enough to ban the establishment of any religion as the 'faith of the nation' in the constitution. They also left the door open for the eventual banning of slavery by not establishing it in the constitution either. We survived slavery, now we just have to try and survive the Christian theocrats who imagine America as some sort of Christian nation and are constantly trying to inject their faith into every facet of secular America.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    6 months ago
And thankfully the founders were smart enough to ban the establishment of any religion as the 'faith of the nation' in the constitution.

Some theists like to erroneously claim the nation was founded on Christianity or is a "Christian nation" or some nonsense like that. But the Constitution conspicuously and purposely does NOT SAY ANYTHING about religious fealty with regards to the nation. Only that there is religious freedom, which applies to the individual, not the nation as a whole.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    6 months ago
Some theists like to erroneously claim the nation was founded on Christianity

The reality is that there were about 7 to 10 million native Americans who lived here back in the 1600's. The first Europeans to arrive did consider themselves Christian but they were relatively few in number. By 1775 the colonies had grown to about 2.5 million and were under British rule and thus subject to the Church of England's brand of Christianity. Out of the 2.5 million, about 700,000 were slaves who were often forced to convert but held at that time were still holding onto their African tribal religions and wouldn't be considered "Christians".

From those numbers emerged our nation, with the founders directly finding the boot on their necks of the Church of England and King George unbearable. Most of the colonists did consider themselves Christians, but many had fled here due to the religious persecution they experienced at home with the battles for power being played out primarily by the Catholic Church and Protestantism. Many of the founders were disgusted by this which led many to become deists, abandoning any sort of organized religious doctrine. This is why, as you pointed out, they "conspicuously and purposely does NOT SAY ANYTHING about religious fealty with regards to the nation".

What some theists so haughtily believe is that regardless of the fact the founders and the constitution forbade any establishment of a national religion, theirs is the true religion thus all nations and governments must bow to their God. They do not truly care for the constitution as they cannot serve two masters. They go along with the constitution as long as it doesn't infringe on what they believe is their God given right to "spread" their religion (by any means necessary for some). Many believe that just by their being born here to a Christian family means they are now the Hebrew Gods new chosen people claiming the Jews abandoned their seat at Gods right hand when they killed Jesus. And some Christian faiths even teach America is already the New Jerusalem. But the real threat comes from the evangelicals who are literally preparing for a "holy war" and some of those evangelicals are in positions of power in within the government. Many of them believe it's just a matter of time before their King returns and leads them to victory over the whole earth, not just the US, which means they are just biding their time until they are told to destroy our republic, stab their fwllow man in the back and shred the constitution so as to replace it with their religious doctrine and violent theocratic rule murdering all who stand in their way.

https://norberthaupt.com/2011/01/16/u-s-population-in-1776-and-1790/

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/1600-1754-native-americans-overview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem

https://ips-dc.org/apocalyptic-christianity-returns-u-s-foreign-policy/

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.2  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    6 months ago
Some theists like to erroneously claim the nation was founded on Christianity or is a "Christian nation" or some nonsense like that

They think it gives their efforts at dominionism more validity.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @6.1.2    6 months ago

Or their delusions.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.1    6 months ago
What some theists so haughtily believe is that regardless of the fact the founders and the constitution forbade any establishment of a national religion

Disingenuous at best.   What one PhD wrote about it:

Mark David Hall, PhD, Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University, stated in his June 7, 2011 report titled “Did America Have a Christian Founding?”:

“[C]onsideration of a wide range of Founders and their public actions shows that few if any embraced anything approximating modern conceptions of the separation of church and state…

America’s Founders were committed to the idea that religion (by which virtually all of them meant Christianity) was necessary for public happiness and political prosperity…

America’s Founders did not want Congress to establish a national church, and many opposed establishments at the state level as well. Yet they believed, as George Washington declared in his Farewell Address, that of ‘all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ Moreover, almost without exception, they agreed that civic authorities could promote and encourage Christianity and that it was appropriate for elected officials to make religious arguments in the public square. There was virtually no support for contemporary visions of a separation of church and state that would have political leaders avoid religious language and require public spaces to be stripped of religious symbols.”

June 7, 2011 - Mark David Hall, PhD

While it's true that they didn't want a "National" church or religion the reasons were more for freedom of choice than anything else.   It wasn't that they were against religion.   It was that they were for MORE religious freedom.   Freedom to choose ANY religion one may desire in their pursuit of happiness.   This came from past experiences in the UK and Europe in general where national churches and religions were more common place and problematic towards following other "non-state approved" religions.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.4    6 months ago
freedom of choice

The bottom line and the founding principle of our inspired system of governance. Too many forget this basic principle, all while being protected by the same freedoms that allow them to express their grievances.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.5    6 months ago

I always say liberties are easy when you agree with them, they only get hard when you don't.   That's where the rubber meets the road for everyone in this country.   Acceptance of things you don't agree with and its wicked hard to do sometimes.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.6    6 months ago
Acceptance of things you don't agree with and its wicked hard to do sometimes.

It is difficult, particularly in a leadership vacuum as we currently experience...that dark, airless, lifeless space where those in leadership positions (on both 'sides') would rather launch verbal assaults, threats of litigation, and refuse to even shake hands than do the hard work for their constituents. The hard work of accepting our differences, joining in reasoned debate, and showing a willingness to compromise in an effort to move forward together. Childish does not begin to describe what we are witnessing. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.7    6 months ago

It goes back something else i think i said to you here or in another thread.

The politicians love it when we are at each others throats.   Gives us less time to hold them accountable for robbing us blind.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.8    6 months ago
to hold them accountable

...sadly, no longer a consideration for the entrenched.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.4    6 months ago
It was that they were for MORE religious freedom.

But that expressly meant they wanted freedom FROM religion as well, as that was their issue with Britain and Europe at the time, where the Church was as powerful, if not more so, than the Kings.

To have freedom of religion, where you can choose whatever religion you wish, means you have the freedom NOT to choose any religion, otherwise you're being forced to pick one or another, thus not being "freedom" at all. Thus keeping religion out of governance was integral to the constitution and our founders ideals.

Thomas Jefferson wrote "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" which is engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. but it is only part of the actual quote. This was not a quote in opposition to King George as some may think, Jefferson was responding to attacks made on him by clergy in Philadelphia during the presidential election of 1800.  The clergy accused Jefferson of being unfit to become President because he did not hold Christian beliefs. "The clergy ... believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - letter from Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.

Like Jefferson, I too oppose organized religions schemes for power as do millions of sensible Americans whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist or any flavor of faith.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religion, or religions established by law.” - Thomas Paine

"The Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” - George Washington

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments . . . it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” - John Adams

“[T]he government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion." - John Adams approved and ratified test of the treaty of Tripoli

“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.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas Jefferson

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.10    6 months ago

To be sure, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7  Steve Ott    6 months ago

Ever read the Thomas Jefferson bible? He pasted it together, removing all traces of Jesus divinity.

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Steve Ott @7    6 months ago

No I haven’t and I disagree with him on that obviously.  

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.1  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @7.1    6 months ago

So does that mean you against red letter bibles? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MAGA @7.1    6 months ago

How could you disagree with him on that if you hadn't read the Thomas Jefferson bible?

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7.1.3  Steve Ott  replied to  MAGA @7.1    6 months ago

So then, you can agree that not all the founding fathers were "christian" in the sense intended in the article, nor that all wanted a "christian" country.

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    6 months ago
They wanted no state religion or any one religion having power through government.  

Which isn't a Christian principal. 

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
9  Larry Hampton    6 months ago

Funny how deliberate and pervasive the words "God" or "Jesus" are in the Constitution. 

Hey, wait, those words don't even appear ONCE in the Constitution.

jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1  Gordy327  replied to  Larry Hampton @9    6 months ago

Even funnier when some theists claim the US is a "Christian country" or based on "Christian principles," when those are not mentioned or stated in the Constitution either. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Bob Nelson
Tacos!


48 visitors