jump to last post 1-50 of 51 discussions (377 posts)

Sarah Palin Says America Is A Christian Nation

  1. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    What do you think? I'm not gonna argue it, though I may come in later and post my opinion, but I wondered if many people here would agree with that term as an apt description of our country. Additionally she says

    “Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” said Palin. “And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

    Do you think "God should be separated from the state"?

    Here's a link, I'm sure you can find more details somewhere else on what she said if you're really interested.

    http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/04/22/s … hes-wrong/

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, American is a Christian nation.

      I don't mean the specific denominations of Catholic or Presbyterian or Disciples of Christ or Methodist or even Baptist or whatever.  Especially it doesn't mean the religions of Islam or Buddhism or even Mormonism.   I mean that American is a Christian nation, based on Godly principles, period, based on belief in God Almighty the Creator, and should remain so.

      Many attempts have been made, and are still being made, to undermine that foundation; specifically these days from our highest Office in the land.
      I guess time will tell whether those attempts succeed overall.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image90
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But with all due respect, could this idea of most people believing in God also apply to many other nations? Lots and lots believe in God, but they certainly aren't Christians, and their governing principles are based on their ideologies of God. If that's the case, many other nations are just as God-fearing as America is. That would make us more similar than different, wouldn't it?

    2. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
      Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      To start with what are the values of the U.S? Not to take anything away from America and its Beautiful people I would think otherwise. Currently America has the highest number of abortions in the World, the highest divorcees,most prisons. On the foreign scene, its the single loudest advocate of homosexuality. What is so christian about these?

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your perspective.

        I agree with your viewpoint completely. smile

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I like your observation but America has always had a "do as I say, not as I do" type of policy. Why shouldn't the people practice their religion the same way?

    3. topgunjager profile image61
      topgunjagerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      sarah palin needs to show proof that she has a high school diploma.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        She might not have that, but she has at least 6-7 college transcripts to make up for it! smile

        1. topgunjager profile image61
          topgunjagerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          i wonder how many heads she had to blow to get those/

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you read "all" of the magazines, you don't really need a diploma.

    4. RachaelLefler profile image93
      RachaelLeflerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      George Washington may have been the most religious, but the founding fathers were intellectuals with a wide range of religious convictions, but most of them were deist/agnostic and not really Christian or atheist.

      1. Rod Marsden profile image85
        Rod Marsdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Some of the founding fathers were Freemasons. You don't have to be a Christian to be a Freemason but you have to believe there is only one creator, you have to believe there is only one God. A Jew could become a Freemason and so could a Muslim and of course a Christian. Benjamin Franklin was a Freemason.

    5. 61
      cgavicposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yes, america has christian roots.

    6. 0
      philip carey 61posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I country can have all the mechanisms it wants to separate church from state, but the fact is that religious faith lies within individuals not mechanisms. Unless you can separate individuals from their faith, this sort of separation isn't really possible. At the end of the day, the point is moot.

      Church and State will be intertwined to the exact degree that the collective minds of its people are intertwined with this religion or that.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think your post says it very well philip. wise words.

      2. Pandoras Box profile image83
        Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's a good answer. Which is why I feel that to gain ground politically we have to change peoples' minds religiously.

    7. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I believe the constitution says what it says. That the government should not impose one religion over another on it's people. I also believe in what it says about NOR deny the free expression there of!

  2. Padrino profile image60
    Padrinoposted 6 years ago

    A poll conducted last year by Newsweek or Time Magazine showed 80% of those polled considered the U.S. a Christian Nation.

    If you are asking if the U.S. should govern from the religious perspective I would say no!

  3. Origin profile image61
    Originposted 6 years ago

    I believe the country was founded with Christian beliefs, but on the same token I believe in separation of church and state.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol @ separation of church and state. When is the last time a president got elected that wasn't forced to have a religious belief?

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True. In fact, there's only one member of Congress, Pete Stark, who has been open about being atheist. (Fortunately, he represents a rather educated, open-minded district in northern California) Of course, there is no way he could win the presidency, despite a long, distinguished career in the House.

        Ironic and sad, that a man of accomplishment and integrity would have no chance at the White House because of a lack of belief, but Sarah Palin, a compulsive liar who knows virtually nothing, is within spitting distance of winning the Republican primary for the top office.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The mob wants what the mob believes. You would think since a president is supposed to be an individual and leader, they wouldn't be expected to be a religious follower.
          I think it would make more sense for religious belief to rule out someone being a president rather than ruling them in. Religious beliefs are biased to those that believe as them.

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            They should absolutely be a private matter, especially when there's a long record for someone demonstrating what kind of person they are.

            I understand that in the absence of any information/history about a person's values, using religion can be a shortcut (it can often tell you how vote on certain hotbed issues), but a person without an examinable record is probably not a great candidate for office, anyway.

            It's amazing that those adages we're taught as kids "actions speak louder than words, " "well done is better than well said," etc are all ignored by a majority of people when it comes to choosing a politician to support.

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, but I don't think even records are of much value, those can also lie. A person could have a horrible record in the past and learned from every mistake in bettering themselves or they could have an excellent record the entire time based on lies unknown to the public.
              Agreed, the presidency has turned into a popularity/faith contest rather than the most logical standing a chance.

  4. wyanjen profile image87
    wyanjenposted 6 years ago

    Washington was a deist. Not a christian.
    He never took communion.

    Every president ever elected (except Jefferson) has affiliated with a church - but ask yourself why?
    If a candidate in our times declared himself to be an atheist, would he stand any chance of being elected? Things were no different 200 years ago.

    Thomas Jefferson:
    "[I do not wish to be] exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies."
    He must have known Palin's great great great grandparents.

    This nation was not founded with Christian beliefs. The Fathers stated so specifically.

    John Adams:
    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

  5. Daniel Carter profile image90
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    Some of the founding fathers were theists (or deist, which ever it is), not Christians. Thomas Jefferson carried his own version of the Bible around with him. (He had some pretty major edits, including a very different view of who Jesus was.) Benjamin Franklin believed in God, but did not ever support any church, saying that most, if not all, were corrupt. Many others felt similarly.

    If that categorizes them as Christians, then I suppose they were. However, I think not. I do think most people believe this is a Christian nation, but when you get right down to what individuals believe, I think the numbers are much more in the gray areas.

    I've never believed that  a state religion is good, nor will I.

  6. Origin profile image61
    Originposted 6 years ago

    When I mentioned "Christian beliefs" I wasn't talking about that in relation to the government, but the general population.

  7. RecoverToday profile image84
    RecoverTodayposted 6 years ago

    Is it not Christianity that the country was founded? I believe history tells us the original settlers came here seeking freedom of religion. Was the basic principle of the nation not founded on Christian values? I thought it was.

    1. Padrino profile image60
      Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I believe you are correct, I think some are talking about our government not being created on Christian beliefs.

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is correct to say the original settlers were fleeing persecution and searching for religious freedom.
        We are talking about the government, not the majority faith of the citizens. smile There is no argument there.

    2. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
      The values that this nation was founded on do not come from christianity. The Fathers said so explicitly.

      "Thou shalt not kill" is a value that you can find in any code of morals throughout history, for example.
      The values overlap because they are common.

  8. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    The US has a Christian majority. This is indisputable. Does this mean that the US is a "Christian Nation?" Absolutely not, but obviously, this is disputable, since there are so many people disputing it.

    My favorite argument from the "Christian Nation" folks is the one where they say that the founders were all Christians, therefore the US was founded on Christian values. Really? Then please explain to me why those founders did not see fit to mention any of these Christian values in our Constitution? Were they being forgetful? Sloppy? Or did they perhaps deliberately keep religion (of any kind) out of the process of selecting and running a government?

    Article VI makes it pretty clear to me: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    For further evidence, take a look at the actual text of the oath of office for the President ("I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."). Note that there is no mention of God or Christ whatsoever.

    So either the founders were bumbling idiots who forgot to include their most dearly cherished values in the founding document of the United States, or they deliberately chose to keep religion (of any kind!) out of the selection and administration of government.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You still don't get it, do you?

      Yes, religion was intentionally kept out.

      But not Faith in God nor those Godly values.

      There's a huge huge difference.

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cite sources please.

        Here is my source:
        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/1924135_f248.jpg

        Jefferson's bible, constructed in 1820.

      2. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        The government is to stay out of our religious affairs.  That's simple.  If I want to pray to a big blue sack of tennis balls that I believe is alive and lives under my house, that's my right. But the government can't force everyone else to learn about my fairy tale god or your fairy tale god. 

        You can believe what you believe, and I can believe what I believe.  That's all there is to it. 

        And morality is not exclusive to one religion Brenda.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nor religion in general.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image61
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            True.  Although my blue sack god smites perverts pretty mightily.  Don't know how you atheists can really be moral without the fear of getting smote.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not an atheist.  I pray to the one true god-FSM.

              He can and will smite the infidels who follow the blue sack or Jehova.

            2. wyanjen profile image87
              wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Blue sack.
              Sounds painful.

            3. Daniel Carter profile image90
              Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Widow smite.
              Beam in my eye and smote in yours.

              All Biblical.

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I get that there's a difference between faith and religion. And no, there's no bar for a person of faith (or religion) to serve in government. No religious test, remember? The point is, it's not supposed to matter what faith a person follows (or if he even follows a faith at all) when said person is being considered for a government position.

        Voters can make their choices based on anything they want to, of course, from which political party a candidate belongs to to what color suits he favors to what religion he professes to follow.

        The worry I have about this "Christian Nation" nonsense (and I believe it to be utter nonsense, based on our actual history, not some made-up history that the religious right would have us believe in) is that it may (and probably will, if left unchecked) function as another stepping stone to the Christianization of the US.

        Christians have rights. No argument. But so do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and yes, even atheists. I think the noise that these other groups have started to make in asserting their rights is making Christians, who have been complacent in their overwhelming majority for a very long time, nervous. It shouldn't. It's awesome that our country has reached the point where folks who follow these minority faiths have the courage to speak out.

        1. Daniel Carter profile image90
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely eloquent post, Jeff.

      4. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
        Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, what is the difference in having faith in God and having Godly values? I thought one was the reflection of the other?

      5. Lucky Nik profile image62
        Lucky Nikposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        According to who's God?  I am so incredibly sick of being dictated to by the extreme Christian minority.  And yes, in spite of their bullhorn noise levels, they are a minority.  Sure, the bible is a good book that highlights many terrific moral values.  BUT...it is still just a story - one that has been retold under different names throughout history.  This is a free country and we shouldn't allow anybody's personal faith to govern us.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They may indeed be a minority by now;  I dunno!
          Good point there.
          Perhaps even a point to promote activist advocacy for.....ya know, what with all the "minority" groups we have these days in the great USA.

        2. Sab Oh profile image59
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No matter how "incredibly sick" you feel Christians are not a minority in the US.

          Take two aspirin and see a demographer in the morning.

          1. William R. Wilson profile image61
            William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think she's talking about the right wing nutjob Christians, not the majority of Christians.

            1. Sab Oh profile image59
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And how do you quantify a demographic that exists only in the partisan opinions of liberal/atheists?

              1. William R. Wilson profile image61
                William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'd reply but I don't think you have the capacity to understand.

                1. Padrino profile image60
                  Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You don't have the capacity to explain.

              2. Lucky Nik profile image62
                Lucky Nikposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I wouldn't quantify that demographic either, that's the point - the basis of reality shouldn't be founded on bias

          2. Lucky Nik profile image62
            Lucky Nikposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            When the polling and demographics actually reflect the populace, as opposed to targeting for specific numbers, I'll be very interested to see what the results are.  If you have your thumb on the pulse of the younger generations, you'll notice the group of agnostics growing like none other.

            1. Sab Oh profile image59
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              76% is hardly a minority. And the number of agnostics is actually growing at a slower rate than in the 1990s.

              1. Lucky Nik profile image62
                Lucky Nikposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                76% of people polled, not 76% of the actual population.  Dig through the social networking sites and take note of people's religious designations on their profiles if you want a dose of reality

                1. Hokey profile image59
                  Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  also it says 76% of adults. There are more young people in this country than adults nowadays.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image59
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Spin, spin, spin...


                    Says a lot that you know you have to embarrass yourselves this way

                2. Sab Oh profile image59
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "dig through social networking sites"...


                  ...roll


                  Qute the scientific method there...

                3. Padrino profile image60
                  Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  A social networking site is where you go for reality? I'm sorry for you.

                  1. Lucky Nik profile image62
                    Lucky Nikposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow - you guys are funny.  So quick to dismiss.  No, that's not where I go for reality, but there is quite a representation of young people there.  You have to look in all the cracks if you want well-balanced information.  What would you suggest for reality?  FOX?

          3. Hokey profile image59
            Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            There are definately more non-christians than christians in this country.

            1. Sab Oh profile image59
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What country is that?

              1. Hokey profile image59
                Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                This country

                1. Sab Oh profile image59
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Which country are you referring to, specifically?

                  1. Hokey profile image59
                    Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    United States

          4. Daniel Carter profile image90
            Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not so completely sure....
            I think if asked, most Americans would say they are Christians, but if you define exactly what a Christian is, I also think you'd find that people are very, VERY much in the gray areas of Christianity. A lot of Americans believe in God and Jesus, and still DO NOT believe in the basic tenets of Christianity.

            God-fearing, or God-believing is more like what America really is, and if that's the case, then we're not much different than a lot of other countries on the planet.

            1. Pandoras Box profile image83
              Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Good point, Daniel. Most modern 'christians' can't stomach the basic tenets and would define themselves more as universalists than christians.

              1. Strophios profile image60
                Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There are plenty of Christians who can't seem to hold to the basic tenets of Christianity; the universalists are the best of them. They get the best of the moral side (and all the other fun stuff: the music, the holidays, etc.) without the incredibly irritating "Repent Sinners!" holier-than-thou attitude. By contrast, the evangelicals (particularly the right wing) fall into the opposite trap: they have more than enough hellfire for everyone, are eagerly awaiting the rapture, and are looking to make life as miserable as possible for those who do not fit their idiotic and twisted morality in the mean time (this is, of course, in addition to their often nonsensical political views).

                So yes indeed, thank god for the universalists.

                Note: I am intentionally speaking in generalities, I'm aware that there are certainly excellent evangelicals and immoral universalists. (Although the evangelicals have, without question, the more annoying theology).

        3. Hokey profile image59
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I couldnt have said it better myself.

        4. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
          Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Whats is so wrong with being the minority? What is most important is what Christianity stands for.

          Focus

  9. luvpassion profile image60
    luvpassionposted 6 years ago

    However, there are the words on US currency that I've mentioned before..."In God we trust." In the Judicial system..."Swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God!"

    Teri

    1. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In God We Trust was added during the cold war.
      The point was to rally everybody against non-christian Russia / USSR.
      It didn't exist before the '50s.

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I forgot to add the word propaganda
        smile

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wyanjen, it first appeared on paper money during the 50's, right along with the insertion of "under God" into the pledge of allegiance. It appeared on coins first. Specifically, it first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

        But you're right about the propaganda. God was inserted into our pledge and onto our paper money in an attempt to differentiate the officially secular USA from the officially atheist USSR.

        1. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          RE the coins: Thanks for that info. smile I'll be reading up on the two-cent coin.

          "In God We Trust" on Jefferson's nickel is the ultimate historical mistake. wink

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Probably about the same time "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

      4. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is true.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "there are the words on US currency that I've mentioned before" Which didn't appear until the Civil War.

      "In the Judicial system..."Swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God!""

      Except that "so help me God" part is traditional, and not prescribed. A typical affirmation used in U.S. District Courts goes:

      "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?" No god, of any kind.

      Witnesses of non-Judeo-Christian faiths can also ask to substitute an alternate text for the Bible. And atheists can ask to affirm atop a plain black book.

      And as an interesting bit of trivia, when President John Quincy Adams was sworn in, he used a book of American laws rather than a Bible.

  10. luvpassion profile image60
    luvpassionposted 6 years ago

    Facts I wasn't aware of...thank you.

    Teri

  11. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    They saved "God" for the state constitutions. In every state's constitution that includes a preamble, the word "God" is mentioned. Except for Oregon's.

    And, of course, God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      But what does God have to do with Christianity?

      Do Muslims have God? Hindus? (The mention of God may irritate an athiest. That's something for them to work out.) But there is NOTHING in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution to support Sarah Palin's claim that Christian philosophy has an inside track politically.

      The founding fathers shut the door on religious meddling in public affairs over 2 centuries ago - and for 2 centuries, ambitious religous con men have been trying to force the door open.

      1. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Doug, I said this in response to God's not being mentioned in the Constitution. I was following the discussion. You must have come in late.

  12. ceciliabeltran profile image85
    ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago

    I think she should stop using religion to mask her lack of grasp of anything. Her issues are uninspiring, and yet annoyingly, I am talking about her.

    Perhaps because it is fascinating for me to watch someone so lacking in whattostandfor rise to such prominence...its mind boggling how americans continue to cheer this person into thinking enough people will vote for her in 2012

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We don't have to worry about Sarah Palin getting elected because my big blue ball sack will destroy the world in 2012. 

      Judgement cometh, sinners!  Prepare to be smote!

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Would we still be talking about her if she looked like Janet Reno?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If she still had the same screaming-cat voice..

        Yes

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I guess you are right. After all we have all known somebody we could put up with a short time if they looked good enough.  After awhile the screeching becomes boring and the pretty face looses its' favor.

      2. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good point.
        But look how long we talked about Janet Reno because she looked like... Janet Reno.

        1. Hokey profile image59
          Hokeyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol

  13. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Sarah Palin stated this as true.  Do we need further evidence that it is not?

    If she stated that the Earth is spherical, millions of scientists would rush to their labs to reconsider what had been accepted as fact.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    2. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      hahahahaha!! Actually, I read that they now think Earth is more pear shaped. See? Palin was wrong...again!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your source is incorrect. The PEOPLE of Earth are becoming more pear-shaped, not the planet itself.

        1. habee profile image89
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, doctors say it's healthier to be pear shaped that apple shaped. I'm more of an overall circle! lol

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am jelly doughnut shaped.  I think it's genetic.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Jelly donuts!  My favorite!  Forget the frosted cake donuts; they're nothing in comparison.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Does your town have a good local doughnut shop?

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What a waste of time and bandwidth.  The issue was settled already.

      1. Greek One profile image79
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        do you realize, Ron, that we both have Homer as our choice of avatar?

        1. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol  lol thanks for the giggles.

          here's a great quote I found, don't know the author.

          “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses  over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

          christian doesn't necessarily mean godly. it's just a label. if I can remember correctly, the name 'christian' originally came from those who ridiculed them. the first council of nicaea decided what the basic christian doctrine would be... convened by constantine 1, who was a rather controversial figure.

          plenty of people believe in some higher power/source.

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          True, but mine has had the greater impact on western society.

  14. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    I have a question. 

    Do human beings have any innate rights?

    Where do those rights come from?

    I know it is stated "by their creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

    Creator not being part of the equation from what source do we inherit our basic human rights?

    1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
      Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I thought you were a capitalist, well H.W. Maslow was an american socialogist, read more about his hierarchy of needs.

  15. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Ron, my town has a bakery that makes the BEST doughnuts in the world! They're incredibly light and fluffy. They must use extra yeast or something. They sell out every day!

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/68/38/9f/line-inside-of-long-s.jpg
      Long's bakery in Indianapolis makes incredible doughnuts that have been featured on several national TV shows.  If I'm ever in your neck of the woods, I'll try some of your local product.

  16. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    If you look strictly at the numbers the majority of Americans are Christian.  But so what?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!

  17. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    If this was truly a Christian nation, it would  not be anything like it is today!!
    We keep forgetting who the adversaries were....the money changers!
    America worships money, that's the problem!  IMO

    1. Padrino profile image60
      Padrinoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Put it on a Tshirt!

      But don't get arrested.

  18. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Thanks Jeff for your astute observations. I can add litle but perhaps Thomas Jefferson can.

    "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

    -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

    So if TJ was hubbing he would say - NO - the United States is is not a Christian Nation and the founding fathers never inteded one.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That omission was why Brenda declined to sign the declaration.  She stomped out of the room and referred to the congress as a bunch of perverts and socialists, which is really weird when you consider that there were no socialists at the time.

      1. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

  19. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Palin and her base are generally misunderstood but a lot easier to comprehend in the context of this post. Sarah is an evangelical christian, which makes her more inclined to impose her religous beliefs on all society than a normal Christian.

    According to Wikipedia, evangelicals make up 26% of the population. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll from Februaray, 26% of those surveyed thought Sarah is qualified to be president. Get that 26% and 26%... Where are the Sarah Palin supporters coming from? IMO - almost ALL evangelicals - and almost nobody else.

    If you are the kind of person who would be comfortable with someone like Brenda (to name someone we all know and love) telling you how to live the most personal aspects of your life - then Sarah Palin is the natural pick for you.

    On the other hand...

    1. livelonger profile image90
      livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Haha, very true! I know a few evangelicals that wouldn't vote for her, and some seculars who adore her, but yes, they are probably a small minority.

  20. tony0724 profile image59
    tony0724posted 6 years ago

    Of course we are not a Christian nation. That is why the Oath of Office is taken with a Bible. Thgat is why you are sworn to tell the truth the whole truth aand nothing but the truth so help you God right ?

    This is the text of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We already covered that in this thread.

    2. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm. It doesn't sound like that when I say it. smile

      Adams was sworn in using a volume of constitutional law. Roosevelt also did not use a bible.
      It is not a legal requirement - the presidential oath as written in the constitution does not include the phrase "so help me god" and the bible is not mentioned.

      smile

  21. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    You forget about the nations that were already here before the Europeans came.

    They took a whole Cherokee Nation
    Put us on this reservation
    Took away our native tongue
    Taught their English to our young
    Took away our way of life
    The tomahawk and the bow and knife...remember that song?

    Very cruel bit of history....somehow I think Jesus would have been on their side!

  22. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Pailin is a zealot. Worse, she is a full blown tongue talking zealot. If she were to become President America will have no friends left in the world, and considered a laughing stock!
    Can you imagine this loony getting up in front of the world and talking in tongues?
    That she has even had a run at politics is sad enough, but if America is her version of a christian nation, then America will sink like a stone!

    1. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      She is the first SEO politician.
      Her speeches are stuffed with keywords. She doesn't even seem to notice that she doesn't make sense - she only want to get those phrases in there.

      tongue

    2. Sab Oh profile image59
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "If she were to become President America will have no friends left in the world, and considered a laughing stock!"


      You seem to have a hard time grasping this concept, or maybe you can't hear us from way down there on the 'misc' level of nations but WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

      You should take all the energy you use worrying about 'liking' us and try to make your little nation the very best it can be, and be proud of it.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Our "Little nation" is doing fine. Your opinion is as always of no interest to anyone who can think past your local village.

        Sad sab, just sad.

        Australia has always been a good friend to America, and those who take your isolationist view are a problem to America's world image, not the solution.

        I have seen you needle everyone on hubpages until your last sock puppet TK got banned.
        Your opinions are always the same, you are against anything that resembles common sense, and seem to enjoy displaying bigotry like a flag.
        Get over yourself, you're comments are like a very sad broken record.

        1. Sab Oh profile image59
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Our "Little nation" is doing fine."

          I certainly hope so.

          " Your opinion is as always of no interest to anyone who can think past your local village."


          Yes, I guess I've never been past the local village because you say so...



          "Australia has always been a good friend to America"

          That's great. YOU certainly don't sound like one.

          " and those who take your isolationist view"

          When did I ever say I took an isolationist view? Don't get ahead of yourself.

          " a problem to America's world image, not the solution. "

          Are you still not listening?

          " you are against anything that resembles common sense, and seem to enjoy displaying bigotry like a flag."

          Could you give me an example of being against common sense? (be careful you mean common sense and not just YOUR subjective view)

          And show me an example of bigotry on my part or be prepared to apologize for that charge.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Would you like to take a poll? lol

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, let us vote! LOL

            2. Sab Oh profile image59
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Would you like to take a poll?"

              No, I'd like to see some evidence of it - as I said. Although it is painfully obvious why you are already avoiding that.

              1. Sab Oh profile image59
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And so we see that you can't support the charge AND lack the character to apologize. Well, at least everyone knows what you are all about...

  23. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 6 years ago

    We were founded as a Christian nation to control the mob. Read a dollar bill, it says "In God we Trust". What God do you think they are talking about?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "We were founded as a Christian nation to control the mob. Read a dollar bill, it says "In God we Trust"."

      Okay, one more time. The phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on our paper money when?

      A) 1776
      B) 1787
      C) 1957
      D) It doesn't matter: it's there now, so it must have been put there by GOD HIMSELF to declare that non-Christians should just shut up and sit in the back.
      E) None of the above

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        F) If we keep repeating it, it MUST be true
        http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-think001.gif




        I suppose, in the context of a big ol' communism vs. capitalism cold war, the perfect place to put the propaganda would be... on the money.
        clever bastards!

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        1957, but only someone of ignorance would think a government would put religion on currency that wasn't founded and had belief in religious principals.

  24. Highvoltagewriter profile image88
    Highvoltagewriterposted 6 years ago

    Bush Jr. also seem like a key word kind of guy...

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And Limbaugh. Maybe this is why socialism is winning over conservatism, conservatists are failing to evolve from religion while preaching against government control when religion is government control within itself, same as socialism.

      1. Sab Oh profile image59
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        roll

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you even know who Limbaugh is?

          1. Sab Oh profile image59
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            roll

  25. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    Ugh.

    This reminds me of a poll:
    http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/9/US/284

    The percentages of those polled (Americans) that dislike San Francisco, New York, France and Europe, were virtually the same, about a third.

    There are a few xenophobes that resent and hate everyone else, especially anyone they think looks down on them.

    Maybe unsurprisingly, the highest percentage of dislike among these 4 places was registered by Southerners...

  26. goldenpath profile image80
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    I believe the best answers to social problems are summoned through personal foundations in the gospel.  From that perspective I believe it is important for God to play a part in a persons decisions while in public office.  However, I emphatically support that no favoritism or even the appearance of favoritism be granted toward any religious organization by one, or entity, in public office.  This includes no oppression to any group Christian or atheist, black or white, tall or short (me), bald or hippie or even pro-life or pro-abortion.  To hold public office is to acknowledge that all facets of belief are under your care.  You have a duty to equally recognize and protect all segments of society.  If one feels they cannot do this they should not be in public office.

    1. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nicely done smile

      *quick tip*
      If you crop your pic so there is not so much space over your head, we won't see how short you are.
      Yeah. Just bump yourself up a little... cut out some of those extra flowers up there at the top, and you'll look taller.
      big_smile
      (j/k of course)

      1. goldenpath profile image80
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You know, that's an excellent point!  I thank you for that.  It's the price I pay for being so self conscious.  I'll work on the crop tomorrow.  Next time let me know what you think.

        Very good advice! smile Thanks!

    2. RecoverToday profile image84
      RecoverTodayposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      Good for standing up for what you believe.

    3. Pandoras Box profile image83
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah I agree, nicely stated GP.

      (Shh, don't tell anyone I said so.) wink

  27. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Ruh Roh Rorge.  TK mad now yikes

  28. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    While it is true that religion can be perverted to evil ends, the fact still remains that religious belief is the foundation of moral behavior.  Because of that, religion is the foundation of social behavior as well.  Argue all you like the logic is inescapable.  Why else would every human society have some sort of religious belief system?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "the fact still remains that religious belief is the foundation of moral behavior."

      So, atheists are by definition immoral people?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        According to the mob/majority, yes. Try winning the United States presidency without claiming a religious belief. See how far you get. lol

        1. Daniel Carter profile image90
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Obama pretty much did that. He down played the fact that he is a secularist by his "hope" and "change" inspirational addresses. People got a religious feeling from his ability to speak, and disregarded that he is pretty much non-religious, despite that fact he has a muslim background and attended a Christian congregation. It was all about garnering support, not about devotion for beliefs.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well now. 

      I guess if you say the logic is inescapable it must be true. lol

      The implication of your statement is that those without religion are also without morals.  Quite the opposite is true.  If your morals are based on plagiarized myths (the resurrection story that pervades so many religions for one example) of what use are they?  If religion is the foundation of moral behavior, why were the big 3 spread through acts of terrorism? 

      Many societies sprung from religious foundations.  Those same societies, as they evolve and become more progressive are turning away from religion rapidly.

      1. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you assume that if you espouse Judeo-Christian beliefs you have to believe in the Resurrection?  The core belief of Christianity is that we are all brothers and sisters and we should treat each other accordingly.  It is entirely possible to believe in something like that without a belief in the Resurrection.

        I'd disagree with your contention that as societies evolve, they move away from religion.  Even supposedly atheistic nations like the Soviet Union had a very active religious population.  Indeed it would seem that the less religious a state seems to be, the more brutal it is when it begins killing people.  Millions murdered by Soviet and Maoist forces.  Even prior to the 20th century, nations that moved away from a religious base tended to kill much more than those who had a belief in something.  The French Revolution comes to mind, especially when you contrast it to the Revolution in the English Colonies.  It should come as no surprise that the Founders wished to protect the ability of people to worship, or not worship, as they saw fit; whereas the French attempted to replace their religion with one based on "Reason".

        Now if you were to say that societies as they evolve tend to move away from fundamentalist religions, well there we'd be in agreement.  Although historically we've seen movement towards and away from fundamentalist positions; for the most part the trend is always away.  Calvinism was very popular in the 17th century, for example, but today few examples if any remain of that belief system.

        1. Pandoras Box profile image83
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your last sentence isn't quite true. At least it certainly wasn't ten years ago. Sure free will is the popular cry, but TULIP is alive and well.

          It's a good position for a christian, really. Makes everything nice and easy.

        2. Jane Bovary profile image88
          Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's also entirely possible to believe in something like that without a belief in Christianity.

          Just thought I'd mention it.

    3. Strophios profile image60
      Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is the opposite of the thing which is true. Religion is often cited as the foundation of moral behavior, but it seems far more likely to me that this is something ascribed to religion ex post facto, with some sense of moral behavior preceding religion. This seems likely for several reasons: first, there are plenty of religions in which the gods are i- or a- moral (see Greek mythology, or Norse); second, moral behavior still exists without religion (see studies on very young children, for example, in a lesson on instinctive compassion).

      Finally, "the foundation of social behavior"? That's just ludicrous, as that would imply that religion preceded social behavior as well, which is pretty self-evidently untrue.

    4. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm a Christian, but I have to disagree with the above. Some of the most moral people I've known are actually atheists.

      1. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ask them what the foundation of their morality is.  I've asked around a few times, but can never get a straight answer.  Perhaps you'll have better luck than I.  It's a shame really, I am quite curious about where an atheist gets their ideas of morality from.  I have a suspicion that most of them, at base, have a Judeo-Christian view of morality, at least as opposed by a belief in Nietzsche or Marx or something like that.



        Interesting, most of my pych and sociology professors  will tell you that humans don't have instinct, they have reason.  Even more interesting, I agree with them on that.  I am curious, do you make a distinction between reason and logic?  I think you mean to say that moral behavior is perfected by logic and thought, not reason and though.  At any rate, I'd like to hear your definition of reason, I don't want to make any assumptions.

        1. secularist10 profile image92
          secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I assume the second paragraph is intended for me.

          Humans have both instinct and reason. We all have an innate moral sense motivated by our instincts and natural tendencies, as science has shown. But that is not enough. We then need to use reason/ logic to be even more moral. I don't think, for the purposes of this topic, there is much substantive difference between "reason" and "logic," but I like these definitions from Dictionary.com:

          Reason: "the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument."

          Logic: "reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions"

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            To say humans do not have instinct is not true.  Why do babies get startled by loud noises?  They are not old enough to equate sounds with danger!

          2. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How has science shown we have instinct exactly?  I'm sure I'd have heard something about it.  No the truth is that the tabula rasa seems to be the norm for newborn humans.  If we had instinct there would be no need to mothers and fathers to raise children, they'd instinctively know what to do.  Since that is obviously not the case, if you don't believe me try not potty training your kids, you cannot say with any authority that people have instinct. 

            What we have a learned behaviors, but even these can be changed under the right or wrong circumstances.  As for reason and logic, there is a very good reason not to interchange the two.  Reason is the use of the human mind in conjunction with the five senses to gain understanding about the world.  In that, we agree, I think.  Logic is a pathway to discovery.  A very good pathway, I believe, but sometimes logic is just a way to go wrong with confidence. 

            If you make a false assumption, for example, by the faulty use of reason, using logical inference based on that false assumption can get you to a very bad place.  Like the idea that centralized planning of the economy is a good thing.  If you accept the assumption that people need to be told what to do, logic would dictate that a centralized economy is the way to go.  That assumption is false however, because when you examine societies that have experimented with centralized economies, they have always failed.  So that first assumption, people must be told what to do, must be wrong and reason tell us that it must be discarded.

            1. secularist10 profile image92
              secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It seems the issue here is semantics and the definition of the word "instinct." Here's what Wikipedia says under "Instinct":

              "Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed. Examples of instinctual fixed action patterns can be observed in the behavior of animals, which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are not based upon prior experience..."

              It goes on:
              "Some sociobiologists and ethologists have attempted to comprehend human and animal social behavior in terms of instincts. Psychoanalysts have stated that instinct refers to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as life instinct and death instinct."

              And on:
              "Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This definitory argument is present in many introductory sociology and biology textbooks, but is still hotly debated."

              So the issue is definition of "instinct." Call it instinct, call it reflex, call it whatever you want. But what is clear is that humans tend to do certain things regardless of environmental influence. Among these things are certain moral-related things, like feel empathy. Thus, we have learned as well as unlearned behaviors.

              Logic and reason: ok, whatever. Again, semantics are not important to me in this discussion. Some would switch your definitions of logic and reason.

        2. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I tried once to explain this, but it backfired horribly when folks thought I was calling them sociopaths. (I was not! lol)

          So, I'll use a secondary source this time. Basically, the answer is that humans are social animals.
          Sociopaths do not have inherent morals. Why? They do not have empathy.

          Here is an excerpt, along with a link to the whole article:

          Where does the Moral Tendency come from?

          And that, luckily enough, leads us to the foundational principle of morality: empathy. Psychopaths lack empathy with their fellow human beings, and cannot be truly said to have a moral impulse.

          The principle of morality is empathy; what differs are our approaches to that principle, and how we interpret our feelings of empathy in order to make a coherent system.


          http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So your assertion is that morality comes from empathy.  Is that correct?  That then begs the question as to where empathy comes from.  If we have empathy, why don't predator species have empathy?  Why do some species nurture their young while others do not?

            1. wyanjen profile image87
              wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Empathy is part of the human condition - and humans are social animals.

              Some predator species do have empathy. Some non-preditors (prey? lol) do not show empathy.

              Our species has survived and thrived with a social model. We survive by relying on each other. In order to do that, we have to have empathy.
              It's not instinctual, it is learned behavior.

              I haven't studied this subject (instinct) too deeply, but I remember reading that the only instinct a human is born with is the suckling reflex.
              I think this fact of itself explains where empathy (and all human qualities) comes from. Like I said, I haven't researched it a ton, but my thinking is that because newborns require so much attention, as opposed to animals born with many instincts that do not need much parenting to survive, they are able to develop more complex thought.
              What I'm trying to say is survival based on instinct does not require deeper thought processes.
              Humans mature very slowly compared to other species. This fact emphasizes the social aspect of survival.

              With or without religion, morals stem from empathy. Empathy is a social behavior, and it is learned.

              Using your example of a crying baby: without empathy, a parent would not respond to the child.

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh I agree, empathy is what separates us from lower orders of animals.  I'm not so sure I believe in empathy from wild animals.  Some domesticated animals like horses and dogs, sure. If you've proof of predatory empathy and prey lack of same, I'd like to see it.  Otherwise I think we can classify that as an assumption.

                I'm glad you recognize empathy as a learned behavior.  I'm sure between the two of us we can come up with dozens of examples of people who don't act with empathy.  So would you agree that religion is one way to teach empathy to each succeeding generation?  If so, what sort of mechanism would atheists use to pass along the same teachings? 

                Earnest, you only think that because he agrees with your assumptions.  Caribe, you've skipped over vast swatches of US history in order to make a point.  That's not exactly kosher.  Are you aware that Jefferson signed his documents while he was President "In the year of our Lord Christ, [date]"?  Hardly the actions of a deist/atheist.

                http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr … p?id=22345

                You really might consider doing research first and coming to a conclusion rather than the other way round.  Your arguments tend to hold more water that way.

                1. CaribeM profile image86
                  CaribeMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Jefferson signed his documents while he was President "In the year of  our Lord Christ, [date]"?"

                  Of course, that was the custom then (and now), you will see that in every document from the period up until the 19th century, either in Europe and the Americas. In Western societies we count the years, before Christ (BC) and after Christ (AC) or Anno Domini (AD, which means "Year of the Lord")

                  BTW... I never stated  in my post that Jefferson was a deist/atheist.

                  Plus, I like to debate ideas and did not attack anyone personally in my comment, I will appreciate the same.

                2. wyanjen profile image87
                  wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Empathy in wild animals is very well documented. Here is a quick snip, but bear in mind it happened at a zoo, not in the wild:
                  Take, for example, the story of a female western lowland gorilla named Binti Jua, Swahili for “daughter of sunshine,” who lived in the Brookfield Zoo in Illinois. One summer day in 1996, a three-year-old boy climbed the wall of the gorilla enclosure at Brookfield and fell twenty feet onto the concrete floor below. As spectators gaped and the boy’s mother screamed in terror, Binti Jua approached the unconscious boy. She reached down and gently lifted him, cradling him in her arms while her own infant, Koola, clung to her back. Growling warnings at the other gorillas who tried to get close, Binti Jua carried the boy safely to an access gate and the waiting zoo staff.

                  I would agree that religion is one way to teach empathy, however I don't see any value whatsoever in adding "because jesus said so" at the end of the lesson. It's like re-branding - putting a brand name on a generic product.

                  You mentioned Jefferson earlier:
                  the phrase "In the year of our Lord Christ, [date]" does not have religious connotation.
                  It was only used as a reference to the calendar, like the way we use AD now.
                  big_smile That's really grasping at straws, because Jefferson was the most outspoken of the fathers regarding his lack of belief in god.

                  this conversation is much fun, but it is late & I have to hit the sack.
                  smile

                3. earnestshub profile image87
                  earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Duh! That is how it works Ledefencetech! Are you saying that because I agree with someone I must be wrong? Poor logic I would think. smile

                4. Daniel Carter profile image90
                  Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, it's pretty well known that Jefferson was what is considered a diest, not a Christian. However, the debate continues on, because they can't seem to find any statement Jefferson made about it. However, there is plenty of evidence about his feelings toward religion and even Jesus Christ.

                  He felt that the ethical teachings of Jesus were supreme examples of human interaction, and he went to great lengths to separate out those ethical teachings from religious dogma and supernatural stories.

                  So, one could deduce easily tbat he had no quibbles about signing things "in the year of our Lord..." because he regarded Jesus very highly. But as to the religious and dogmatic aspects of Jesus' life in the Bible, he apparently had no stomach for it.

                  Google any of this and you'll find loads of links and information.

                  I still maintain that while some of the founding fathers were traditional Christian, many others were not at all. However, that does not preclude their believing in a supreme force or God. And I think that many in America today are in line with this thinking rather than subscribing to traditional sects of Christianity.

                  1. wyanjen profile image87
                    wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm breaking the promotion rule, but this hub explains Jefferson.
                    Also, search David Bowman.

                    http://hubpages.com/hub/Jeffersons-bible-Most-sublime

                  2. ledefensetech profile image80
                    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    We're talking about the 19th century.  Most of the Founders were members of one of a wide variety of Christian denominations.  Which is exactly why they did not want a state sponsored church.  Pennsylvania is a case in point.  When William Penn founded the colony, it was to have been a safe haven for English Catholics who had been persecuted on and off since the reign of Henry VIII.  Over the years of royal administration of the colonies, that haven was destroyed and the Anglican church made the official religion by the King.  Why the change?  Pressure by the "official" church of England, of course.

                    The funny thing is that it doesn't matter what the Founders believed.  They were wise enough to know that humanity's original condition was one of maximum liberty.  Jefferson bounced back and forth about religion and belief.  If you look at his writings, he seems almost and agnostic or atheist in his younger years, but he seems to have shifted his belief to a more orthodox belief in Christian values as he got older.  That is where most of the confusion sets in. 

                    Incidentally, that is what drives most atheists mad about Jefferson.  He was a doubter but then found comfort in the teachings of Christianity as he got older.  Which is not unusual.  Jefferson's tale reminds me of Gerard Manley Hopkins, a poet of the Victorian era.  Hopkins was an interesting guy.  He was a Jesuit priest who came very much to doubt his faith. 

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Man … priesthood

                    Again it's very strange to have so many people who are...apprehensive over a religion whose core teaching is that all human beings are to be treated as brother and sister.

      2. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I take the "hate the sin, not the sinner" mentality.
        Except I don't believe in sin. lol

        What I mean is this: I don't judge individual people based on their system of belief. I'm a humanist, and I understand that personal spirituality makes for a happy human.

        This exchange here about the roots of moral behavior is a perfect example of one of my arguments against religion.
        Morality is a human condition. Those who try tie a basic human quality to a divine source are doing nothing more than exploiting human nature.

        You know that nagging feeling in the back of your mind when you think you may have done something wrong? Well, that's god telling you that you have sinned. Say a prayer, put your money on the collection plate, and you'll feel better.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have known a number of Christians who wish this country to become more "God Centered" but when asked further as to how that would look reply that it should be based on Christianity.

          There are a number of religions that are believers in God but the dogmas and traditions are all somewhat different. Just look at the middle east and the mess the Islamic countries have between the same faiths?

          I have asked a number of young people who claim to be God fearing followers of Christ a simple question of what is the "Golden Rule" of life in the Christian faith.  The answers range from they don't know to Gods day of reckoning for the homosexuals. 

          With this diversity of different awareness of religious dogma how can anyone expect to base a government on it?

          By the way the "Golden Rule" is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" for those still guessing.

    5. secularist10 profile image92
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The foundation of moral behavior is human instinct and human nature. Moral behavior is perfected by reason and thought, not following someone else's imaginings about the universe.

    6. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because they all have a certain percentage of wackos intermixed in the bunch!

  29. goldenpath profile image80
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    Is this any better wyanjen?  Be truthful, or my nose will darken the sun over your state. smile

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!  You are huge!

      1. goldenpath profile image80
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why, thank you!  It only took my Wheaties this morning and Popeye food (spinach) last night to make it work.  Of course, filling my belly button with Miracle Grow last night may have nudged it along as well.  Gee, now I'm a BIG people now!

        Scratch the spinach pun.  Spinach is repulsive and desecration of all life on the planet, but that's just my opinion. smile

        1. Pandoras Box profile image83
          Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Admit it - You've been drinking milk, haven't you?

    2. wyanjen profile image87
      wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol
      I was teasing but damn. You really do look taller now.
      Y'know, I'm 5'10" - and I'm the shortest one in the family.

      Two guys I work with complain because I stash stuff way up on the highest shelves, and they need to get a chair to reach. I do try to be more considerate.

      Now for a completely unrelated smiley which makes me laugh. I must share:

      http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen130.gif

      1. goldenpath profile image80
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am rolling on the floor!  You guys simply must share how you do these wonderful additions to posts.

        I work in retail management.  A co-worker like to tease me at times.  She offers me a piece of cigarette paper to stand on for additional heighth.  You know, if I didn't have mom and dad's genes of extreme humor I would be offended quite often in my life. 

        I see it this way.  My nose may be large but my height keeps me stable and grounded. smile

        I welcome instruction on the cool pictures!

        1. wyanjen profile image87
          wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          One of these days I'll put up a pic that shows my nose.
          I promise you it is the largest nose you will ever see. It's ridiculous. I look normal straight on, but from the side, I look exactly like a duck. tongue

          Some of the smileys I use, I make for myself. But most of them come from this site:
          http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php

          This is the easiest thing in the world. The codes contain everything you need: just find one on the list that you like, copy the code underneath it, and paste it in the forum.

          http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-computer001.gif

          1. goldenpath profile image80
            goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fart005.gif

            Cooool!  I'm so gitty like a dog running after a car!

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Dude, have you been working out?

  30. secularist10 profile image92
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    I wonder if a country in which 80-95% of people have sex before marriage is a "Christian" country? Hmmmm...

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006 … index.html

    Fact: the vast majority of Americans call themselves "Christian" when asked by a pollster

    Fact: the vast majority of Americans are not actually Christian.

    Any society where Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and gangster rap music become widely popular is not a Christian society, no matter what the people say or want to believe. Period.

    1. Pandoras Box profile image83
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, true. Very. Not saying anything wrong with those, just that they clearly aren't what christians are supposed to be clamoring for.

    2. Daniel Carter profile image90
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point. I concur.
      A step further: gangsters, thugs, murderers, etc., who still go to church. Mafia comes to mind. Others do to. They may consider themselves Christian, but I don't think any one else does.

  31. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Ever care for a very young baby?  About the only thing they know to do is cry when they are in some sort of distress.  That in a nutshell, is why humans don't have instinct.  Lower animals do.  Salmon compelled to swim upstream are driven by instinct so they can spawn.  People, as said in your linked article, can override those compulsions and thus change their behavior.

    What examples do you have of humans doing things regardless of environmental influence.  Not trying to be picky, just trying to get a better understanding of the point you're trying to make.  I get the impression what you call instinct I call by another name.

    1. secularist10 profile image92
      secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Again, I am not interested in an academic debate among sociologists about whether humans have "instincts" or just "unlearned behaviors" or whatever.

      If you're not comfortable with the term "instinct," fine. But you do know, as you alluded, that humans do things regardless of environment. Examples? As you mentioned, crying is an example. Just think about what babies or small children do all over the world regardless of culture or the values of their societies: cry, run around, laugh, seek out companionship, etc.

      That's the type of thing I'm talking about. It is in those very fundamental and basic human tendencies that we see the stuff of which rudimentary morality is made. That's one major reason why human societies the world over exhibit broadly similar moral tendencies--case in point being the "golden rule."

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely correct.
        The world over, and throughout the course of history.

        Religion is simply claiming that it is responsible for something that happens anyway.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Or it could be that religion is the vehicle by which we understand things like the golden rule.  Why is it that so many peoples use religious methods to transmit things like the golden rule?

          1. secularist10 profile image92
            secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sure, the golden rule is understood through various means: religion, philosophy, indoctrination, legal codes, etc.

            But as Wyanjen said, religion is simply claiming that it is responsible for something that happens anyway.

            We know it happens anyway because, as I said, the golden rule and many things like it exist across the world, with or without religion, before and after religion. So religion, which is variable, cannot explain the golden rule or other such moral things, which are constant.

            To answer your last question, they use religious methods to transmit the golden rule because religion is (1) simple to understand, (2) popularly accepted, (3) has been fully developed over many years, (4) typically deeply ingrained in the culture and customs of a people, (5) often offers simple, black-and-white answers to complex questions, etc

          2. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you mean do unto others, that has enough flaws in it to drive a truck through! There are a lot of people who would steal and do many bad things. Should the "Do unto others" be applied to them, they would be very upset!

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Ever care for a very young baby?  About the only thing they know to do is cry when they are in some sort of distress.  That in a nutshell, is why humans don't have instinct."

      This is false. Infants have been found to have several instincts.
      1) as mentioned by someone else above, infants fear loud noises. Why?
      2) the suckling instinct. Nobody teaches a baby how to suck.
      3) the grip instinct. Infants grab stuff (with a surprisingly strong grip) and hold on. We don't know why, but similar behavior is documented among other primates, who use all their limbs for locomotion, and whose babies have to hold on to the parents.

  32. CaribeM profile image86
    CaribeMposted 6 years ago

    My "two cents" to the controversy here...

    The original motto of the United States was secular: "E Pluribus Unum" ( "One from many").  It refers to the welding of a single federal state from a group of individual political units (colonies and after 1789, states). In the mid-nineteenth century eleven Protestant denominations developed  a campaign to add references to God to the U.S. Constitution and other federal documents. In 1861, Rev. M.R. Watkinson was the first among many ministers to write a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury to promote this concept. During the Civil War the concept took hold.

    As Jeff Berndt stated in one of his posts, In 1864, the motto "In God We Trust" and applied to a newly designed two-cent coin.The phrase was a reminder that the Union considered itself on God's side with respect to the causes and aims of the war.

    Almost a century after that, in the mid-1950's, the nation was immersed in the Cold War and the McCarthy communist "witch hunt". In this context, communism was associated with Atheism and Christianism with Democratic, Capitalist and Liberal Western countries. During this decade, the Congress and the President approved a new law which replaced the national motto to "In God we Trust" in the currency. Also during this period, as Ralph Deeds pointed out, the phrase "under God" was added to the otherwise secular Pledge of Allegiance. After that, there was a proliferation of God references in federal documents.

    So... the references to God in federal documents mostly appeared in the context of the Cold War, thus they are not part of the foundational legacy of the US.

    And of course, most Americans identify themselves as religious persons and many of them Christians, but the political entity called USA, is secular, which guarantees the freedom of religion (or lack off),  otherwise you will be living in a Theocracy.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is a pretty healthy 2 cents worth! Well stated and factual, a bit rare in a thread like this one! lol

      1. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No kidding! big_smile
        Welcome to the forums CaribeM
        But I have to ask: are you using the 1864 two-cent coin, or just two regular pennies?

        1. CaribeM profile image86
          CaribeMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the welcome... About the two cents,  I used the "E Pluribus Unum" ones ; )

          1. Pandoras Box profile image83
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And a sense of humor. Excellent!

            You know I haven't heard anyone mention e pluribus unum in a long time.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I can't believe I didn't think of the "E Pluribus Unum" motto (the one the founders chose) as further evidence of the secular roots of the USA's founding. It also goes hand in hand with another motto, "Novus Ordro Seclorum." (I need to 2ble check the spelling of that one) that appears on the great seal of the US.

              No time to look stuff up just now though.

              1. CaribeM profile image86
                CaribeMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Novus Odro Seclorum" ("the beginning of a new era"') refers to the year of the Declaration of Independence MDCCLXXVI (1776, in case S. Palin read this wink ), printed in the base of the pyramid. The year marks the founding of a new political entity.

                1. William R. Wilson profile image61
                  William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It also can be translated as "A New World Order."

                  O.o

                  Is that a black helicopter I hear?

                  1. CaribeM profile image86
                    CaribeMposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    In fact, that's the meaning British gave to the expression in the early 20th century.
                                  NOVUS means novel, young, new, or renewed.
                                  ORDO means row, order, or series.
                                  SECLORUM means generations, ages, or centuries.

                    So the proper literal translation will be "A New order of the Ages".

  33. William R. Wilson profile image61
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    "Even prior to the 20th century, nations that moved away from a religious base tended to kill much more than those who had a belief in something.  The French Revolution comes to mind, especially when you contrast it to the Revolution in the English Colonies."

    I think you are forgetting some things... slavery, genocide of the First Nations...

    Then there were the inquisitions, and the wars of the Reformation etc.

    1. Sab Oh profile image59
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No comparison to the numbers who have died under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot, Kim, etc.

      1. Strophios profile image60
        Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't think it wasn't for lack of trying. It has simply become increasingly easy to kill people. Although, even if you wanted to compare absolute numbers, if you were to include the things William R. Wilson mentioned, it might be surprisingly close (and you of course wouldn't want to forget the Crusades, in which the Albigensians (Cathars) were wiped off the face of the planet, and the streets of Jerusalem were soaked in blood up to your ankles.

        Although I should add that I'm not particularly after religion here; my argument is more one of equality, that is to say: people kill people for all kinds of reasons. Ideology is a common reason. Within ideology you've got a whole lot of subcategories, none of which I would particularly privilege insofar as being particular sources of death and destruction (although nationalism would be a strong contender).

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Strophios, you're forgetting the 30 Years War (Christians vs Christians) and the sack of Constantinople (another Christians vs Christians thing). We Christians are really good at persecuting one another. Sometimes we forget that we really should be persecuting other people. wink

        2. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Any belief system which gives its followers the illusion of certainty can lead to atrocity. These ideologies can also tie together quite nicely - religion can feed into nationalism and racism, for example. 

          So the problem is not religion, or lack thereof, but rather, the instinctive Us vs. Them mentality and our inability to transcend it.

  34. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 6 years ago

    Sarah Palin should know, she reads all the newspapers and must know everything about of which she speaks.

  35. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    God is no respecter of persons....He makes the sun to shine on the good and the evil smile

    NWO: Nazi's Within the Order

    New Order of the Ages....I wonder if they were talking abou 2012, just as the Mayans and possibly Nostradamu?? ALL people's/religions/myths actually have this "Apocalypse" time don't they?
    Because we ARE entering a new age..going from Pisces to Aquarius.
    As above, so below.
    And the capstone hasn't been placed on the great pyramid (dollar bill)...but I read they are having ceremonies preparing for it....
    I wonder if our founders were talking about the end to the Mayan calender, and the new  Age of Aquarius coming?

    (1776, in case S. Palin read this )...hahahaha---good one!

  36. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    I thought that was Gods job ( to decide)
    Guess Sarahs thinks he needs a hand lol

    If I was born in a garage ,would that make me a car?

    (No.. a baby silly)

  37. ITSecurityAnalyst profile image59
    ITSecurityAnalystposted 6 years ago

    Anybody can say anything in a democratic country, don't mind smile

  38. IntimatEvolution profile image82
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    Sarah Palin is a fruit cake.  The same Christmas fruitcake people throw away, and only send to people they really hate.

    She is a Fruitcake.

    1. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      true... but she is still hot

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
        IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Greek!  You think???  I'd take her ex-husband for a spin myself.  But his mouth would have to be either taped shut or overfilled.wink

        They all are loons.

        1. Greek One profile image79
          Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.. i would overfill her mouth too

          smile

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
            IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Hahahahaha- I love your wit.  You always make me laugh.smile

            1. Greek One profile image79
              Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              comes and goes with the meds

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Braggart

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      mmmmmmmm, fruitcake

  39. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Sadistic torture, illegally keeping people locked up, re-creating a mind as they did with Padilla, starving, homelss, wars for oil and power,the evil justice system we have....if this is Christian, I'd hate to see the opposite!

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow you hate us so much maybe you do need to see the other side. Try living in Saudi Arabia, or maybe Somalia.

      1. lovemychris profile image78
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If I hated "us" I would say so...stop being so childish!
        And don't we do business with Saudi Arabia?
        Aren't we big supporters of any number of tyrants when it suits our purpose? *cough* *cough* Saddam....

        Stop this clap-trap about how "good" we are, and get real!

        We are "good" and we are "bad"...
        But Christian???
        Didn't he say "You shall know them by their fruits?"
        So why are we still in such a mess?
        Patti Smith once said something like "If we really believed Jesus it would transform the world".
        If we are such a Christian Nation, there is a whole lot of dis-connect in what we say we believe!

  40. Williamjordan profile image59
    Williamjordanposted 6 years ago

    Why not being a Christian nations just say we believe,it does not make us a nation that can not live in the world it just says we have values and beliefs it does not require all to believe just those who choose to.

  41. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    "America is a Christian Nation"... Lets look at what it's about. Evangelicals want to establish as a LEGAL principle - not limited to those of their church - that life begins at conception. The courts have repeatedly struck that down.

    To get back in the game, they have to undo the concept that the United States is a secular nation - which it is - and which they want to reverse.

    Evangelicals can say what they want - think what they want - pray when they want. No problem from me - in their homes and churches.

    Keep it out of my face.

    1. JWestCattle profile image61
      JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Keep it out of my face." 

      What an interesting choice of words.  In a country founded on religious freedom, freedom to be 'religious' in its many facets in those days, and which was freely exercised by our Presidents and by our Congressman in those days, by our brand new citizens.....YET, your interpretation of religious freedom, of the separation of Church and State....is Keep it out of My Face!

      That is a terribly bastardized interpretation of the original and TRUE concept of the Separation of Church and State.  The principle was not to throw out God or whomever you conceive as your Higher Power, Mohamed or otherwise, it was instead to be accepting, NOT throw it out.  Govern with religious freedom, not require the people to adhere to the President's religious beliefs.  Let the live in religious peace.

      IN GOD WE TRUST.  This Administration will have it removed, or redefined.  Until then, it is IN Your Face.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually no, this country was founded on greed.  Religious freedom put no money into the hands of those countries financing the exploration and settlement of the New World.

        The first Spanish explorers brought with them priests who witnessed extreme cruelty and bloodshed to the Native American tribes while attempting to enslave them.  They needed them to replace the decimated ranks of those working the cane fields in Cuba and other Caribbean isles.

        And it wasn't much better when the British took over from the Spanish.  Many native tribes were purposely annihilated by disease tainted blankets and by killing off the vast herds of bison which they depended on for food and clothing.

        These Godly folks then brought in African slaves to till their fields and settle the wilderness for them for many generations while they went to church and worshiped the god who gave them permission to do these evil things.

        If there is a god, he must be sorely embarrassed for his name to be associated with the way this country was founded and the legacy still carried on by these same adherents.

        1. JWestCattle profile image61
          JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Take the greed and the killing and the slavery up with the United Kingdom and Europe.  The actual people that founded this country with their blood and sweat, that weren't rich, weren't titled, came here seeking freedom of religion or freedom from government controlled poverty with no generational end in sight, and a goodly number sought simply limited serfdom in lieu of death or imprisonment in their home country.  Those are the people from which the majority of us have sprung, including me.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Freedom from treating natives like fellow human beings..

            Freedom from paying negroes for their labor...

            Freedom from being nagged by pesky females at the polling places...

            1. JWestCattle profile image61
              JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              One of my maternal Gr. Grandomother's was a fullblood Choctaw who was too ashamed to sign on to Dawe's, the other was a poor Scotch-Irish Confederate widow who drank laudanum(sp?) and grieved, one paternal Gr. Grandmother was a maid who made her way with her sister all the way from Illinois and married a widower who died while her children were young and got kicked out to the street and made her way on her own and across many miles to Texas and married again and lived a long rich in love life.    Take your one liner BS to someone else.  Life is what you choose to make it, that is what being an American is about, and that is what is in danger of being forever changed.

              Take up the annihilation of our Native Indians, the introduction and perpetuation of slavery with the UK and Europe.  America can validly own the 'pesky females' who demanded a voice.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Scotch-Irish probably refers to a blended whiskey.  The people you are refering to, my ancestors, are Scots-Irish.

                Your take on U.S. history is really, really......

                People of a great nation can look honestly at their past without white washing the evil elements of it.

                1. JWestCattle profile image61
                  JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually the "Scotch-Irish" or "Scots-Irish" were the "meanest, damnedest people in the world" per my Gr. Grandfather.  You clearly know nothing about America's personal history as a working class inheritor. Maybe you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and have great practice with white-washing your well-born, slave-holding, Indian-killing British roots.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Andrew Jackson and George A. Custer were British?  And you are suggesting you know history well? 

                    There was a little thing called the Crusades when adherents of your God didn't care to listen to those with a different set of beliefs.  They even wiped out cities inhabited by fellow Christians because these citizens dressed and talked like those they "disagreed" with.  Brilliant, Godly representatives of your deity.  They are still many ancestors of these ancient self righteous folks around today.  Especially in Texas!  LOL

                  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You are so very confused.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So we weren't Americans until after the Civil War?  So, you have no ancestors who owned slaves or took part in any unsavory segment of American history.  You are the only exception I am aware of whose family tree is spotless. 

            Even the Puritans were expected to turn a profit for the financial backers of their colony.  If it hadn't been for the local natives they would not have succeeded with their early settlements.  Look at how they were repaid for their kindness.  "God helps those who help themselves" in this case, to other peoples lands and livelihood.

            But you keep telling yourself God was fully behind these actions by our early founders.  You'll be fine!

      2. wyanjen profile image87
        wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Is there a reason you are so confrontational?

        I agree with Doug completely here. How do you figure he misinterpreted this? Your post makes no sense.
        I'm not sure how you figure that freedom of religion means everybody else has to put up with being confronted. Nobody is telling you that you can't pray. There is no reason to be getting up in people's faces about it.

        Freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion.

        1. JWestCattle profile image61
          JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion."

          Apparently not these days.  In its original conception, yes.  If it's in your face and you are agnostic or atheist, you are offended, and want it permanently legislated away as though your right is greater.  That is not freedom of religion.  That is not tolerance.  That is ignorance or fear.

          1. wyanjen profile image87
            wyanjenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So...

            Your right is greater than mine.
            Freedom of religion means the right to bully and confront people who don't share your religion.
            Tolerance means you have to let people cram stuff down your throat.
            I'm stupid because I don't agree with you.
            And I'm afraid of something.


            I just learned five new things.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And would you like it if others felt free to be "in your face" with witchcraft or some other belief you detested?  No one wants to hear other peoples versions of their deity.  Religious freedom means others not having to experience what YOU believe.  Or what anyone else believes, for that matter!

            1. JWestCattle profile image61
              JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm actually quite fascinated with witchcraft, and would not object to a practicing 'witch' to be elected to the U.S. Congress.  You are so wrong about people not wanting to hear others beliefs, that discourse has been a fabric of life for hundreds of years, only in recent history are the differences suddenly to be scorned with arrogance, rather than death.  The middle road of the years in between are much preferable.

      3. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm responding to JWestCattle - up a ways from here.  If you read what I said, I have no desire or inclination to discorage ANY practice of religion by anyone. The place to practice that religion is personally - by each individual -- and with his/her family and in the church they select.

        I said - 'Keep it out of my face.'

        That means in the public sector - I don't want your religion or aspects of your faith imposed on me. If I wanted to  hold as an article of faith that life begins at the moment a sperm penetrates the ovum, I would join your church. I didn't I haven't and I won't.  Neither do I think a woman who hasn't joined your church should have to live by the precepts of your church.  This is not the only issue at stake. There are attempts by churches to meddle in a patient's right to issue directives regarding end-of-life. There are attempts to discriminate based on gender issues. I say again -

        Keep it out of MY face!

      4. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "IN GOD WE TRUST.  This Administration will have it removed, or redefined."

        You mean like the Eisenhower Administration added it?

        I don't see how removing the slogan from our currency is any worse than adding the slogan where it didn't exist before.

  42. Pandoras Box profile image83
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Goldenpath, I have a question. I was wondering about what you said here, about you believing in the separation of church and state and feeling that elected officials had a duty to work towards justice for all americans, regardless of religious belief or lack of such.

    Does that mean that you wouldn't oppose gay marriage? And/or that you didn't condone the california mormom protests?

    1. goldenpath profile image80
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Religion aside, one's opinions and actions are rooted in their foundations.  My foundation holds that marriage is of paramount sacred nature duly held between man and woman.  They are both to have their shoulders squared toward the Lord.  In other words, only with their focus on the Lord can they truly become one.  Like a triange, with the Lord on top and the man and woman at the bottom two corners.  Only when we climb the ladder of focusing our lives on gospel principles are we, with our spouse, drawn closer together in oneness.

      I believe in free speech and therefore applaud the efforts of the Latter-day Saints as well as the Catholic faith and others in California to protect the sanctity of marriage.  We, as Latter-day Saints, firmly attest that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the destiny of His children.  The vital part of that family is husband and wife who are legally and lawfully wed.  We feel that the family and marriage in general is under severe attack in the world today.  The breakdown of this institution is reaping frontal attacks not only socially but politically as well.  Those who uphold the family and the marriage union have an obligation to instruct and persuade those who have fallen victim to the skewed views of the eternal design of the family.

      Lay aside the eternity thing that I always talk about.  Just here in mortality the vast numbers of people fail to consider or even contemplate the lasting and generational affects of their decisions.  Infidelity, cohabitation, incest and abuse are but a few topics which damage the hearts and minds of not only the self but the rising generation and those to follow.  How we raise our children deeply affects how they will percieve the world and morals and how they, in turn, will raise their families.  From there it continues down the line as a festering virus or a cancer slowly drying up a family that once had an eternal brightness of hope.

      If we but strive to master communication and anger management, as well as tolerance and understanding, in our marriages and families we will obtain happiness that will last generations.  Failing to do so will lead us in the path of so many fallen nations from times past - the utter breakdown and destruction of the family relationship - without morals or internal guidance.

      Yes, I condone any attempt to protect the family.  This goes for any group and not just religious ones.  As a public official if you have this foundation and roots then it is your obligation to go forth in protection of the family against such immense threats as exists today.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's odd. I seem to recal that  in the history of the Mormon Church, marriage coould be between a man and a woman or a man and several women. Many offshoot LDS 'cults' still practice polygamy and fervently believer THEY are following the teachings of Joseph Smith.

        Times change. Gay or Lesbian couples can be just as committed and nurturing as straight couples.  Their personal relationships do nothing to undermine yours. This is glorified bigotty of a sexual kind, which you are free to  hold as God's sacred word and practice - in your home - and in Temple.  But I am inclined to boycott LDS businesses when I can.

        If LDS businesses don't like being discriminated against, perhaps they won't be so eager to discriminate.

        1. goldenpath profile image80
          goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You're right!  Only we can undermine our own relationships, however in preserving a nation the institution must be protected.

          I won't get into the polygamy thing again and again.  Yes, there are many offshoot who do practice it.  They are not of the mainstream Latter-day Saints (Mormons).  They deny the very revelation that instituted the practice as in times of old.  The Church was instructed of the Lord to cease the practice to prevent the acquisition of the Church, it's property and assets at the hands of the government.  We are a law abiding people and so the practice ceased.  No smoke and mirrors, just plain and simple.  That's all I'll say on that "old" subject as there need nothing else to be said.

          I don't know what discrimination you refer to.  Be it known, though, that we are all human and humans make stupid mistakes and judgments.  However, if you are talking employment opportunities it is well known that many businesses, mostly non-LDS, actively search for members of the Church because of their integrity and trustworthiness.  This has always baffled me yet remains an encouragement.

          Every faith has offshoots.  Every faith has doctrines that others don't understand or believe in.  Every faith has enemies.  Every faith has good people as well as the undesirable.  Let us not be so blind as to separate the Latter-day Saints as anything exceeding these tallies.  It's equal for any faith or group of people.

          1. Pandoras Box profile image83
            Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Okay GP. I see some contradictions in what you say, but I don't want to argue with because I appreciate that you were willing to answer the question. We just made up, I don't want to fight! And I do see a huge difference in the tone of your posts these days, a good difference, and I appreciate that as well.

            It seems you would govern according to your religious beliefs, which in truth is how I think people who take their faith seriously must govern. Which is also why I think people who take their faith seriously and are members of religious groups who discriminate (even in their minds) against any good group of society (good group meaning noncriminal, with no harm to others in their practices) should NOT govern. So basically what I mean, I guess, is that I feel only universalists and buddhists are capable of just governing even when they are committed to their religions.

            Then again, one could argue that a nonbeliever's view of religion might interfere with just governing as well, but then nonbelievers tend to understand that you cannot legislate peoples' hearts and minds. By trying to force people, all you do is strengthen their convictions, just as the religious outcry against gay marriage has brought many non-gay people to their defense.

            I'm sure you will find that offensive, but of course you must realize that the LGBT community would find what you have said offensive, and though I am not a member of that community, I find the hatred exhibited for them offensive. Hatred I know is a strong word, as is discrimination, and perhaps better words could be found.

            I do not buy into the theory (see I'm trying, I was gonna say this b.s.) that gay marriage or gays in general are a threat to our society and the 'sanctity of marriage'. I feel they are being used as a scapegoat, and I find that very... unfortunate. There is absolutely no legitimate reasning behind it. Two members of the same sex loving each other and celebrating that love has nothing to do with crime, the corruption of morals, the lack of decency in society, or anyone else's marriage.

            Indeed, if society would honor their love as love ought to be honored, it would only strengthen the 'sanctity' of marriage.

            If religious people were seriously concerned with the 'sanctity' of marriage, they'd do much better to put their efforts into promoting strong marriages society-wide, and discouraging foolish ones.

            But I really didn't ask the question just to argue against your point of view. I was curious about your statement earlier. It didn't really mesh.

            Now I see that what you meant was something like you would govern the people equally, according to your own religious views. I'm not certain if that makes you any different from Palin and company.

            Again, I would think any person committed to their religious views would have to govern according to them. I don't find that odd at all. If one didn't, it would mean they didn't take their religion seriously, which of course I'd prefer unless they were buddhists or universalists, but it probably wouldn't say much about such an individual's personal integrity. And I'm not sure about all universalists and buddhists either.

            Thanks for answering. You had to know you'd be disagreed with, and I appreciate the friendly tone you answered with despite that.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you lump all believers together?  Look at it from the perspective of a theist talking to an atheist.  Mark and Daniel are both atheists, yet are miles apart when it comes to their beliefs and their willingness to talk about things.  The same thing holds true for believers.  You're much more likely to get an intolerant response from a fundamentalist than you would if you talked to a religious moderate.  Yet I am sure there are some open minded fundamentalists out there just as there are some close minded religious moderates out there.

              One thing we can say for certainty is that we are all individuals and value things differently.  But that doesn't preclude us from agreeing on things even if we don't believe the same things.

              1. Pandoras Box profile image83
                Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I am not sure I did. In any specific way. I did use the term "committed" and I did exclude universalists, so that should cover any believers who don't hold to any specific religious dogma.

                If someone says they're a christian, then I consider it fair to think they believe a bunch of people are willful rejectors of goodness who are hell-bound. In which case they clearly cannot support us or justly consider our needs, much like presidents who refuse to even meet with atheist groups.

                If this is not a part of their personal beliefs, then they are not a christian, they are a universalist. Now, the fact is that many christians are universalists, in which case they really aren't christians by the actual definition. Although they may be christians in the only way jesus ever would have wanted.

                Sorry, but I don't see any error in what I said.

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a matter of definition.  You consider a Christian to be a fundamentalist.  That's not entirely accurate, but I see where you're coming from.  My definition of a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ, like the Golden Rule. 

                  In that respect it's a matter of taste.  You'd consider me a universalist, whereas I consider myself a Christian.  As long as we're clear on our definitions, the terms we use don't really matter.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You are not a christian.

                    A christian would never, ever get into a verbal argument. A genuine christian would have divested himself of his earthly belongings and be walking the earth helping people like jesus christ said to do.

                    I have never met a real christian myself. I have met a lot who claimed to be, but - I suspect that is just me mis-interpreting what Jesus said.

                    Don't you?

                  2. Pandoras Box profile image83
                    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I think the terms do matter, politically at least, which is in fact what we are discussing.

                    For instance, when politicians consider that polls show that 76% of americans are christians, that is what they're going to pander to. Additionally -unlike yourself- you have these people who don't believe half of what their church teaches, but they support it anyway, financially and often ideologically as well. Not to mention that they sit there every week with their families and listen to the stuff spewed.

                    If a christian doesn't believe that atheists are willful rejectors of goodness and hellbound, from whence does he get his beliefs? Obviously not from the tenets of the christian churches.

                    Is there any sect of christianity who does not believe that belief in jesus' divinity gives one salvation from eternal hell? While some of the members personally believe that "belief" in Jesus' divinity gives one salvation from an earthly hell, and discard any beliefs in heaven and hell, their thinking is rather flawed, I think, but it does indicate a lack of commitment to their religion.

    2. goldenpath profile image80
      goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In addition.  Unlike so many of all faiths I choose not to like or support behaviors and/or lifestyles of some people, but that doesn't mean I don't like the people themselves.  Dislike the action but don't dislike the people.  If I was in office I'd advocate for the traditional family relationship but would equally govern all under my jurisdiction.  I'd uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States.

      A reasonable official would still equally govern regardless of his stance all of the following segments:
      Pro-abortion and Pro-life
      Drilling for oil and Environmentalists
      Free Market and Socialists
      Eggs hard and Eggs Sunny-side Up
      Big Noses and Small Noses
      Pro-war and Anti-war
      Pro-Moon landing and No Space Program
      etc
      etc
      etc
      smile

  43. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Freedom from snakes.......

    Oh wait, that was Ireland.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It was either them or us!  And we hated those leprechauns!

  44. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Jackson was the son of Scottish-Irish immigrants. Custer's ancestors were German immigrants, including a Hessian soldier who fought for the British.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Both were American citizens and doing the killing of Native Americans at the behest of our "founded on God" government.  I would venture to say most agnostics and atheists could care less who or what you worship concerning you own particular beliefs.

      Just do not subject us to yours unless we request it and there will be no problems.  Easy enough if you "do unto others."

      1. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Is that directed toward me??

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry Holle!  Not to you, to JWC!  I forgot who I was responding to.  I would have just thrown you in "the briar patch."

  45. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Whatever you do, don't throw me in that briar patch!! Are you on the island?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We are leaving for the island in the morning.  We found out today the replicas of the Pinta and Nina  will be at Brunswick over the weekend.  Wonderful coincidence!

    2. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Habee you have turned into brare wabbit! smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You never cease to surprise me, Earnest!  I wouldn't think you would be familiar with Harris's Brer Rabbit tales  Don't let Holle fool you, she loves a little punishment.  At least the threat, anyway!

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Woops on my spelling of it. Been a long time! smile
          Whoops on my spelling of whoops too!

        2. habee profile image89
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dang, Randy, you don't have to share all my deep dark secrets here!

          Cool about the Nina and Pinta. Take lots of pics!! Will they be at the wharf on 341?

  46. alexandriaruthk profile image51
    alexandriaruthkposted 6 years ago

    christianity or religiosity is hard to define

    according to census data US is 70 plus perecent Christians -- different denominations

  47. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Oh Lordy!!

    Not sure what America was founded on anymore..but seems to me probably no different to any new land and their pilgrims.

    Hard work, cunning and a whole lotta prayer! maybe thats where the Christian nation concept comes from..but praying dont make anyone a Christian,but does make them good 'yappers' lol

    My personal opinion is this , A Christian nation would live and fight, for Christian principles,similarily other nations will fight for what they believe in (be it Christian, or otherwise)
    Their fervour and determination makes most Western countries look wishy washy and weak...

  48. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    In my experience, Mormons are friendly people, but they tend to be backwards when it comes to human rights (towards African Americans, gays, etc.) and only belatedly join the rest of humanity when it comes to respecting them.

    I don't think this is a matter of theology but rather the fact that administration and policy seem to be in the hands of very, very old people in their church. The current president is 82, just months younger than the Pope...and we know where the Catholic and Mormon churches agree (opposing full civil rights for gay people).

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not so much the age of the potentates of the various churches as it is the doctrines which drive them.  Mormonism and Catholicism agree on gay rights, or rather lack of rights, due to the doctrine that homosexual relations are inherently against the will of God.  It doesn't matter if the Pope is 23, 33, 43 or 83; it's the doctrine that drives that belief.  Likewise with the Mormons the doctrine drives the belief, it doesn't matter the age of their Elders.

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I thought everyone who did missionary work was an Elder? I've seen what look like teenage boys with "Elder" on their nametag. smile

        Yes, they all point to doctrine, but I think preference of what doctrine to enforce or to emphasize is very much a matter of the leaders of a church. Those churches with older leaders tend to have more conservative priorities than do younger ones (generally).

        To point to a counterexample: The Episcopal Church (one of the most liberal mainline Christian churches): Jefferts Schori is 56

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Of course they do, but even the Catholic Church changes doctrine as time goes by.  400 years ago, for example, the priest would have a something like a curtain to separate him from the congregation during the Eucharist.  That would be unthinkable today.  Or the fact that Mass is done in the vernacular today whereas a century ago it was done exclusively in Latin.

          That's a function more of the structure of the churches I think.  Those that are very hierarchical and centralized tend to grind exceedingly slowly.  Sometimes that is not a bad thing, other times it can prolong injustice.  Likewise those churches that are more decentralized tend to adapt and adopt much more quickly.  Again a mixed bag.   In the case of injustice it's a good thing to move quickly to end it, but moving quickly for movement's sake only is usually a mistake.

          The Elder thing is a major difference between Liturgical churches and more Evangelical ones.  Liturgical churches tend to be hierarchical and more "traditional" whereas Evangelical sects and to be less hierarchical and more "dynamic".  That's why you can see teenage "Elders".

  49. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I don't agree that that is the core belief of christianity. If so, they're doing a lousy job of promoting.

    I think the core belief of christianity is the belief that JC died and rose again. That is what every christian religion believes.

    it doesn't require christianity to believe in a brotherhood of man.

  50. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    The US is a majority-Christian nation, not a Christian Nation. Do you understand the difference?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Live, you're so right, and it's a very important distinction.

 
working