The United States was not founded on Christianity.

Jump to Last Post 1-21 of 21 discussions (142 posts)

60
Hokeyposted 12 years ago
One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith.
If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
reply report
1. 59
  pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've argued at least twice with someone here that keep insisting the USA is not a secular country, i've run out of arguments, i think facts don't really matter if someone is wired to think with faith...
  reply report
2. 62
  Ramsa1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The United States was founded on war - war with the British and civil war. India drove the British out without going to war with them.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can partly go with that,the America Constitution was created without the word God in it, so they can become more independent from Europe
  
  The native wanted to create a Red nation to combated the American, The British and Native fought the American to preserve Canada territories to Britain until Canada became a country of it's own in 1867. I know all this because I build Native display in theme parks and museums around North America
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm. Didn't the British come here to fight? They could have just accepted the new nations decision to form their own union.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I said territories to Britain until Canada became a country of it's own in 1867
  
  The 1812 war against the USA was the only recorded major war on Canadian soil in it's history. I understand oversea war of world war I and 2, Yet now we have broken tradition and killing poor people over in Afghanistan
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The comment was directed at Ramsa.
  
  Has nothing to do with Canada. The colonies wanted to be free from British rule. So yes, the Brits came here to defend what they thought was part of their dominion. And yes, they came here and fought.
  reply report
3. 61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was founded by Christians who were oppressed for practicing Christianity. Arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and just affirms that oppression is still being practiced.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, that's true. But it wasn't founded as a Christian country. There really is a difference, something I'm sure the founding fathers understood.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was a country founded on principals of freedom, freedom of religion included. If it were left to those of you unhappy with Christianity because it expects people to be moral I'm sure Christianity would be outlawed. After-all you liberal types know whats good for us.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, just as long as that religion was Christianity.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Really, where exactly does the constitution or bill of rights say that?
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, so you actually have read and understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your inside jokes that only you seem to get remind me of someone, cagsil is that you?
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  41 minutes later and not a single post. Must of struck a nerve.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, when more than one userid here reveals your logic as nonsense, they all must be the same person?
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  At least you can admit it.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do cagsil, I do.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Trouble Man admit of being an atheist, cagsil won't and probably still perv at at me for undressing him about it.
  report
  60
  Justin Biserposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Go back to school, you lack intelligence on the subject matter you are referring to.
  reply report
4. 0
  Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When you said that the founding fathers were deists I assume that you were talking about Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and George Washington. Perhaps if you did a little research you will find that more than 50 of the other signers of the Declaration of independence did in fact believe in Jesus Christ. Along with the members of the continental congress, and signers of the articles of confederation. totaling around 200 leaders and developers of this countries foundations who believed in Jesus, minus about ten deists.
  
  Who's trying to rewrite history?
  reply report
  60
  Justin Biserposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Just because someone believes it, makes it true? Thomas Jefferson believe the man Jesus may have existed, but he did not believe he was a deity. He even has his own version of the story of Jesus without all of the added miracles and bullcrap later added. It was called the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ.
  reply report
5. 0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think it was founded on Christianity. The founding fathers had slaves(at least some had) and bible sanctions it.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure at that point in time, the NT was in place and there were no more slaves, not in the Bible, anyway. I could be very wrong on this as I'm not a Bible scholar.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read Timothy, it condone slavery. And Jesus never said a word AGAINST slavery, he said not even a word'll change from law.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But is there somewhere that says we should keep slaves or make slaves of others?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
  Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles: Timothy 6:1-2
  
  Again OT ask to make non jews slaves and jesus said not a word be changed.
  
  You are right, NT does not ask to make slaves, only to keep the ones they already got.
  reply report
6. 62
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  More specifically, America was founded by Freemasons.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  like the Virginia company
  reply report
  62
  Claire Evansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like almost everything.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I found a few Freemasons under my bed last night..... along with a few luciferarians (is that a word?), demons, socialists and communists. The wardrobe monster was so scared he defecated himself.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  reply report
7. 59
  scooterbarksposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I refuse to label myself a “Christian” for two reasons : 1) I do not attach labels to myself or anyone else. 2) The term “Christian” came into existence in Rome to describe a religious sect that worshiped Jesus Christ in defiance of the Emperor who called himself a god. I do not live in ancient Rome, and I defy an entirely different bevy of false gods.
  To postulate that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation” is to err on two basic levels. 1) Nowhere in the Gospels does one find any reference that could be used to institute the ‘founding’ of a nation or any other political entity. The only reference connecting religion and government comes from Jesus himself: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21; “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Mark 12:17; “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Luke 20:25. There nothing in Scripture that would admonish a follower of Jesus Christ to set up an earthly kingdom or nation, rather quite the opposite is closer to the teachings of Jesus. 2) The American revolution was not triggered by any sort of religious teachings; the colonists revolted against the Crown because they considered themselves to be English freemen whose freedoms were being taken away. Their discontent began with the Proclamation of 1763 which required them to cease their westward expansion and to leave the lands they had settled and return to the original colonies. The land they must leave would be turned over to the Indians. The Crown did this because they wanted to win the Indians over to their side in their war with the French. There were many other abuses called the Intolerable Acts, and the English freemen living in America had enough and rebelled.
  After Independence was won, the Founders determined that no religion would govern the lives of the people; they were free to embrace and practice any religion they wished, or not. They did not prohibit religious practice in or out of government, they simply didn’t mix religion with government administration.
  The Founders did not institute the United States as a “Christian” nation, nor as a “Non-Christian” nation. The issue of religion was not germane to governance in the new country one way or the other.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  .
  
  " I do not attach labels to myself or anyone else"
  
  Nonsense. Everyone does, and always will.
  
  We label things. If we didn't, chaos would reign.
  reply report
  59
  scooterbarksposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I appreciate your response to the post. I never said I did not label things. Of course things need to be labeled, as well as places, events, and many other phenomena we encounter. I said I don't label myself or anyone else, meaning people. This is not because I'm a nice guy, but because people change - they grow through various stages in life. I can attach a label to an object with no consequence and that object will remain what it is and it's nature won't change. A car is a car and always will be a car whether sitting on a showroom floor or parked in my driveway or sitting in a junkyard. Any changes that car went through came about because someone or something outside that car impacted it, but the car didn't do that.
  I do not use labels in reference to people because people change and they do so of their own volition. This is not to say that people don't label other people, they do. I'm stipulating that I don't label people, because I find it impractical. I could label you as opinionated and I could be completely off the mark - on the other hand we all have opinions and most of us do share them. What I'm getting at is that to label a person is to state that they are one thing or another which to me is a judgement of that person. I don't mean we can't label what people do. But that is labeling an act, not the person.
  reply report
  59
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think you're kidding yourself. It's not "bad" to label people. It's a necessity to categorize people, at least in our own minds. Otherwise, we'd have a generic description of every single person we know, and would have no way to differentiate between people. It would be an impossible way to live. The labels and categorization change, but you still have to do it.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, to a certain degree we must label things to have a better understanding of order.
  What I do not understand is how Cristian Chaos Theory be the world champion at judging others. I can accept their chaos, although Cristian chaos more often than not, dose not accept me or most other religions or non believers
  reply report
  59
  scooterbarksposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In the interest of brevity I'll attempt to cut to the chase; I never wrote in either posting that it's bad to label people. I simply stated that I prefer not to do so. I have no problem whatever with you or anyone else choosing to categorize people, including me. I also never said labeling people was "bad", I simply stated that I choose not to. That doesn't make me better or worse than you, just different. The reason I refuse to refer to myself as a "Christian" has to do with the numerous connotations attached to that label. When I say I follow Jesus Christ, I'm referring to a living, breathing entity with whom I share a vital and real relationship in the here and now. And remember I'm talking about me, not anyone else including you. You are free to draw whatever conclusion you wish; I have no control over that nor would I choose to if I could. You are a free individual with a free will. But so am I - and I freely choose not to use label. No brag, just fact. Thank you.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are right, in that we do need to label (in our own minds) for various reasons. But, when we categorize people we tend to choose specific traits and ignore others. We minimize the person being categorized so they fit into the box of our limited perception.
  
  This is no one's fault, in particular. Because we label ourselves also, through the window of information we like to use to view ourselves (withholding information either because we are blind to our complete nature or we choose to attempt to hide elements of it). So, unfortunately, no one is completely honest with others, or themselves.
  
  But, the more anyone understands themselves, the more they see that labels aren't completely honest, either. Because what image is conjured by your perception of a label is not the same as any other. So, identifying with a label may cause another to accept the label when their view of that label is completely different.
  
  Like here. You say Christian and immediately you can be perceived as a cousin to the bastard son WBC. Someone else says atheist and immediately they become the philosophical brother of mass murderers and despots.
  
  We have willfully set the stage for miscommunication through being unwilling to accept that those who choose to identify with the same label we proudly paste on ourselves will be used to judge and categorize us.
  reply report
8. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  True, the United States was not founded on Christianity.
  The United States was founded upon personal Freedom which includes Freedom of Worship.
  
  I is hard to believe that No One seems to understand the separation of Church and State.
  
  The Jews fled Egypt because of it Laws, the Moral Laws, the Self-ish Righteousness of the Pharaoh.
  
  Moral Law is an Abomination, is not God's Law; Moral Law is Absolute and inhibit Personal Freedom.
  
  The Law of the Land, of the United States is the Rule of Law which enhances Personal Freedoms.
  
  If you can not understand the purpose of the Separation of Church and State, the significant difference between the Moral Law, the Selfish Righteousness of the Church, the Pharaoh, Islam, the Fundamentalist Muslim, Isis, they you are not only deaf, Blind and Dumb, you are Plain Stupid.
  
  Moral Law is an Abomination, has failed to live up to its promise to bring order to the Universe, God's Law, the only Good Law being Boundlessness.
  
  Would that I could, I would destroy Moral Law, Self-ish Righteousness.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And replace it with what?
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  As I said in my post, "I am" dumb found; I not understanding why people, the Congress of the United States, that not even the U.S. Supreme Court understands the prupose of the Separation of Church and State.
  
  I spelled it out for you in my post and you still do not get it.
  
  In the separation of Church and State, the Self-ish Righteousness, the Moral Law of the Church is replaced with the Rule of Law; Church Law, Moral Law, Self-ish Righteousness, the Morality of the Church not being allowed to govern, inhibit, the Freedoms of the People of the United States of America, of the Promise Land, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Free.
  
  The Separation of Church and State Is not intended to Limit the Freedom of Worship.
  
  The Radicalization of Islam, Fundamentalist Islam, Isis, is born of the Misinterpretation, the distortion, the perversion of Islamic Law, Sharia, by the Self-ish Righteousness, the Moral Law, of the Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees.
  
  If you had the separation of Church and State in the Islamic World, allowing the Rule of Law to govern the People, Freedom would rein, Isis, Fundamentalist Islam would not exist; the Rule of Law would the set the People Free to follow the only good law, No Law, God's Law of Boundlessness.
  
  Moral Law being "Absolute" inhibits Man's Freedom, Boundlessness, the "Rule of Law" enhances Man's Freedom, Boundlessness; allowing a person the Freedom to do as he will without allowing them to infringe upon the Freedom of their fellow man to do as he will.
  
  If you get it now, write to you congressman and the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave and explain it to them.
  
  If you do not get it now; OH Well.
  
  Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keep of the Holy Grail----->O
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  This is called "clear as mud".
  
  A lot of words, like politicians do, say nothing of value.
  
  You may ask for a separation of Church and State, but you will NEVER get a separation of a man and his beliefs.
  
  Who will draw up the "Law" that hasn't already been written?
  If it already exists and (men) break it, twist it, disregard it, what will you do then?
  
  This is the reality we live in right now.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is because thine (your) Single Eye is full of Darkness.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And you know that, from. . ?
  
  Or is that because you can't explain yourself clearly?
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why not be specific as to what part of my post is clear as Mud.
  I thrive on criticism; If part or all of my thought can be shown to not make sense I will dump it.
  
  you wrote;
  You may ask for a separation of Church and State, but you will NEVER get a separation of a man and his beliefs.
  
  wayne wrote;
  
  You still do not get it, I can not make any more simple, clear.
  The purpose of the separation of Church and State is not to get the
  separation of a man and his beliefs.
  
  The purpose of the separation of Church and State is simply to keep the Church from enslaving the whole of the Land with the Self-ish Righteousness of the Church, Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees.
  
  I say nothing bad about Islam, I reject the Self-Righteousness of the Men with dirty, unclean, hands that have been allowed to touch, to become familiar with, to Interpret Islamic Law; the Moral Law of the
  Islam.
  
  Islam your enemy, "The Beast", dwells among you.
  reply report
9. 0
  savvydatingposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your premise is not accurate, although the founders were free thinkers in that they believed that no country should be subjected to religious persecution or any other "whimsy" of a King---most also recognized a Creator, including Thomas Jefferson.
  
  You might want to re-read the Declaration of Independence...
  
  I have included here a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Order of St. Ursula of New Orleans, where he speaks eloquently of God.
  http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historica … r_1804.pdf
  
  Also, the following site, written by a pretigious law firm will clarify some of your confusion. The firm is not "religious," but they do know the law and they have an excellent record of all of Thomas Jefferson's letters in which he recognizes a Creator and America's Christian roots. They simply record the facts along with actual historical texts, given that they are required to know everything pertaining to 1st Amendment rights, as well as all of the other Amendments.
  http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historica … 8_8_12.asp
  reply report
10. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I would bet that the majority of Christians prefer the Rule of Law over the Moral Law, self-ish Righteous, of the Church, the Pharos, Pharaoh, the Pharisee.
  reply report
11. 79
  Chris Nealposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Thomas Jefferson also wrote that "all men are CREATED equal." This states that men are created by a CREATOR.
  Sorry about the yelling. It's late. I'm just trying to emphasize.
  
  While it's probably true that the Christian roots of our country are oversold by those who want this to be a "Christian nation," it's at least equally true that those who wish to not have religion exercise a revisionism. Certainly it would be, at best, disingenuous to say that the Constitution only talks about religion in "exclusionary terms." And an actual appreciation of American history (and I've heard this on NPR as well as from religious historians, it's a well understood principal) shows that religion had a very, very deep influence on the founding of the country and the ideals held dear, including that the kings did NOT have divine right. Even the idea of "separation of church and state" was not meant by Thomas Jefferson as a bar to religion within the state, it was meant that the state would not tell religion how to run its house.
  
  So it might be true that the United States was not meant to be an exclusively Christian (Trinitarian) nation, but it's equally if not more untrue to say that it was always meant to diminish the role of religion in general or Christianity specifically in public or private life.
  reply report
86
livelongerposted 12 years ago
Everyone, with the exception of some fake Christians, will agree with you.
reply report
1. 70
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And possibly those descendants who came on the Mayflower?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower
  
  The folk who made the Declaration may well have been deists, but the folk who founded America were Puritans, seeking freedom to practise their religion, which was devout Christianity.
  
  Political power may have wrested the control from those who established the colony, but that is natural, and currently 84% of your folk declare they are Christian, so it's a moot point what the original rebels thought, when the vast majority hold a significantly different view.
  
  Separation of church and state is a good thing, mainly because involvement with the state tends to pervert belief.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You make a valid point regarding the original settlers but the establishment of the nation by intent did not include Christianity or any religion. Regardless of what faith the majority holds, the documents that bind this country are clear in their intent.
  
  The Constitution is worded as such so the democracy could continue to grow. Unfortunately, the world, including the U.S., has grown beyond what anyone could have imagined and the only survivors will be those deep in the circles of power.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed the documents that bind this country are clear in their intent, however the intent does seem to have been amended several times and bowed to political and secular pressure to shape the laws to favour those who oppose Christianity, and one presumes that IF the 84% of professing Christians were to actually form a political power base that they controlled, the laws could again be diverted to suit their needs and desires.
  
  I am not stating this would be a good thing, the separation of church and state is a good thing, and protects both secular interests and religious ones equally.
  
  Politicians seem to 'play to the crowd' hence you have politicos who target religious majorities to gain office, whilst not perhaps holding the same degree of religious observance or faith that their electors hold and expect from them.
  
  Of course the ultimate end conclusion would be that those who wished to lead a completely secular life would be able to attend completely non religious schools, workplaces, courthouses and public buildings, in total isolation from any religious influence.
  
  Equally those who hold a faith and religion should be able to practice their religion equally free from secular intrusion into their wishes and desires.
  
  But this would be divisive and apartheid and completely outside what the original rebels wished to achieve.
  
  Christians should accept that they hold no special right to enforce their belief system on others.
  
  Equally secularists and other religions need to accept that they have hold no special right to enforce their secularist system on others.
  
  Meanwhile, instead of addressing the situation and reaching an amicable agreement, both sides seek to beat the opposition into submission.
  
  How difficult can it be to accommodate the 16% who do not profess Christ in a nation such as yours?
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lawmakers suck at what they do?.
  reply report
  70
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, but 'we' elect them, so go figure!
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Equally those who hold a faith and religion should be able to practice their religion equally free from secular intrusion into their wishes and desires."
  
  And so should the be, and to be Free to follow what ever person morality, self-ish righteousness, moral law, be as Self-ish Righteous as they please as long as they do not try to require my morality to be same as theirs, rein over me with his and her Moral Righteousness.
  
  "Politicians seem to 'play to the crowd' hence you have politicos who target religious majorities to gain office, whilst not perhaps holding the same degree of religious observance or faith that their electors hold and expect from them."
  
  You should be complaining about the Politicians not the Rule of Law.That is the way the Rule of Law works, law to be based upon a consensus of the Crowd.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Equally secularists and other religions need to accept that they have hold no special right to enforce their secularist system on others."
  
  I don't think you will find many secularist's trying to enforce their views on Christians. The primary argument always seems to be "Just leave me alone", not "Believe as I do". This does, of course, translate into "Don't make laws to force me into your belief system", which many Christians complain is persecution of their belief, but it isn't. It's just "Leave me alone".
  reply report
60
couturepopcafeposted 12 years ago
I've never heard or read anything about that either. It seems, though, that the founding of this nation was strongly influenced by the ideas of the Free Masons.
I haven't actually read Anderson's Constitutions but supposedly concept after concept for the U.S. Constitution was taken from them. The idea that these allegedly enlightened men wanted to create a new world order and rule from a symbolic world capital, DC, may have been idealistic at the time but today, they've come a long way from the original ideals.
reply report
77
brimancandyposted 12 years ago
If a majority of the people who came here were christians they sure were a bunch of evil bastards. They convinced the indians that they were here with good intentions, and then moved west slaughtering entire villages of indians along the way, in their quest to steal their land for themselves.

Back then these good christians treated women like dirt, who could be bought and sold into marriage like a farmer buying a cow, and lets not forget those wonderful slaves that these good Christians brought over who were considered nothing more than property.

The fact of the matter is, the people who originally discovered america were looking for new land for the taking, backed by kings and conquerors. And, all the wars that lead up to the signing of the declaration of independance, were based on greed, and who would eventually hold the money pot. Such great christians these people were.

There was a halarious cartoon on facebook, which is based on this whole back to Christian values BS. It shows Rick Santorum dragging a woman across the ground by the hair after having whacked her over the head with a club. The caption under the cartoon reads. "Just taking the little lady back to those good old Christian family values."

Just one more comment. The whole idea of America being "discovered" seems a bit strange to me, as some cities in Canada seem much older than cities in the US. Like Quebec City and some areas of Montreal. You would think that the french would have been here first.
reply report
1. 70
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The fact of the matter is, the people who originally discovered america were looking for new land for the taking, backed by kings and conquerors."
  
  Not strictly so, the original folk were escaping from those 'kings and conquerors' because they were being persecuted,for their religious beliefs, however forming any new colony requires people to form it, and the subsequent colonists who were not so 'devout' realised that getting the English Crown to 'franchise' them made sense, at that time, when England was the major empire force in the existing world.
  
  When Wesley went to America, about 90 years later, he found a relatively godless society and was thrown out for professing a devout Christianity!
  
  The spread of Christianity in the USA was mainly propagated by those souls who did spread west and 'conquered' the lands, and did decimate the indigenous population.
  
  And I agree that the tenets of slavery were justified on a corruption of scripture.
  
  I am not protecting those who perpetrated those crimes, but equally I do not hear any suggestion that America should logically be returned to those who originally occupied the country in parts.
  
  We are dealing in the here and now, and currently the vast majority of your people subscribe to a Christian concept of society.
  
  My point is that whilst they should NOT be allowed to enforce that societal system on those who hold differing opinions, equally the MINORITY who disagree should NOT be allowed to prevent the majority practising their faith and allowing it to influence how the society is managed, with the exception of non intrusion on personal belief or lack of the same.
  
  Which I suggest is what the signatories of the Declaration were attempting to convey in the document.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought the original 'discoverers' of the new land were looking for a route to the West Indies in search of spices. They were backed by kings and queens and were not looking for religious freedom. That came later after the land was claimed.
  reply report
2. 73
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If a majority of the people who came here were christians they sure were a bunch of evil bastards. They convinced the indians that they were here with good intentions, and then moved west slaughtering entire villages of indians along the way, in their quest to steal their land for themselves.
  
  Good points that often get overlooked.
  
  The Brits did that do all the colonies that they sought to control. A bible in one hand and raped the land with the other hand!
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not entirely true. The trappers and traders and the people they worked for were the bad guys. They duped the natives, essentially. Then the natives joined forces and the battle was on. The settlers that moved westward just wanted a life, were attacked by the now hostile and afraid Indians and fought back.
  
  Trivia: The Plains Indians were a conglomerate tribe made of many tribes and met in the Central Plains. They were hostile, stole horses from the settlers (possibly rightly so) and proceeded to kill off and steal from the remaining agrigarian tribes who did not want to join up. Bad guys on both sides.
  reply report
  73
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree,bad on both sides.
  
  And your first point about trappers and hunters also valid.
  
  I still hold true to the fact though, that at the top level..Kings and Queens ( advised by political figures)ultimately cared little for indigenous people already living off the land,and were determined to possess,own and control regardless of what it would take to get power and control.
  
  Alcohol and tobacco like candy to a kid being stage one:
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely.
  reply report
3. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The early Christian was, the Moral Majority is, little different from Fundamentalist Muslim, being only a little less fanatical when it come to Self-ish Righteousness.
  Many a Male World Wide has a perverted, distorted, sense of Manliness, being a Male Chauvinistic Pig.
  
  If there had not been a separation between Church and State when it comes to the Law of the Land, the Rule of Law being substituted for The Self-Righteousness, the Moral Law, of the Church; the Like of Isis would be Home Grown in the Good Old United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, the Church would be stoning Women for adultery while praising the Male Adulterer for his Manliness, Bravado!
  reply report
73
Diane Insideposted 12 years ago
yet there were still the Salem witch trials.
reply report
1. 70
  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another travesty of the time, and not uncommon in England during the same period, but these instances are carried out by people who abuse scripture as much as they abuse decency and common sense.
  
  In the OT it does say 'do not allow a witch to live' which itself is a strong and unjust statement to our ears, but at the time was a considered opinion as those who TRULY practised witchcraft could destroy a community, however Christ NEVER gave such a command.
  
  It needs to be remembered that personal bibles were scares in those days, few could read, and the people took their instruction from the priest or preacher, neither of whom would necessarily have been well verse in scripture and were probably NOT Holy Spirit guided.
  
  That was fallow ground for the enemy to flourish in, and create ungodly acts in the name of religion.
  
  He still does it today all over the world.
  reply report
76
lovemychrisposted 12 years ago
Puritans came here to escape the imposition of others beliefs on them, then proceeded to imposed their beliefs on others!...I see no reaon to give them any credence whatsoever.

I'll take the inscription on the Statue of Liberty as the moral guide.
reply report
0
Emile Rposted 12 years ago
It depends on what you call Christian principles. The Baptists lobbeyed hard, and rejoiced at the signing of the constitution. The Baptists, at the time, believed 'Christian principles' demanded complete separation of church and state.

Amazing what a few hundred years can do with principles.
reply report
1. 76
  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, or you can look at Christian sects like the Quakers or the Amish, who DO live by their principles, AND are free to do so.....but don't impose them on others!
  
  Here is what I never understand....what is stopping anyone from praying any time they want?
  I mean, when we were kids, we had to say the Lord's Prayer in school everyday after the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Well, my parents weren't religious. My dad, whose parents were Catholic,said that all the priests in his neighborhood were drunks.--(although what saved his life was the Boys Club, which was run by Fathers.)
  My mom, whose parents were Lutheran, would not allow my father into their house because he was Catholic!
  
  But they never complained or threw a fit because we had to say the Lord's prayer in school...which really, was stepping on THEIR beliefs.
  Funny though,that when they said no more prayer in schools, quite a few did throw fits.
  
  And here: "thank you God for this day".....I just prayed and no one stopped me! No one ever can.
  Leave it to the individual. No one can ever take it away, but one sect does not belong lording it over others. IMO
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree whole heartedly. The system is set up for freedom of choice. Those who are screaming, in my mind, aren't comfortable doing their own thing. And they appear to be raising their children to follow the crowd. Dangerous practices. Imo. If you can't live your life by the courage of your own convictions and not worry about what others are doing, what convictions do you honestly have?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Praying whenever you want - didn't I see something a year or so ago about a group of Muslims that spread their prayer rugs in an airport concourse and began praying at the top of their lungs?
  
  Prayer is fine until it disrupts the actions of those "forced" to listen or alter their own activities to accommodate it. Prayer in schools, particularly the lower grades, falls into this category. Not only are all students "forced" to participate ("A time of silence for those wishing to pray, please") but younger children are being taught that prayer and belief are necessary.
  
  Why can't people wishing to pray simply do it on their own - a private moment with their God - instead of making a public production out of it? Is it necessary to tell everyone around that "I'm talking to God"?
  reply report
78
MickeySrposted 12 years ago
The United States of America was not founded on Christianity and is not a Christian nation - but it was certainly founded on Christian principles by a Christian culture . . . some historians have gone so far as to state that John Calvin discovered America (in the sense that the work he did in Geneva set forth many of the ideas that required and informed the founding of America).
reply report
73
Diane Insideposted 12 years ago
I agree that the United States was founded by Christians, but with the idea of becoming a nation, that practiced freedom of religion. So that its residents could practice any religion they choose with any repercussions handed down from the government.

At the same time I beleive that this is being violated all the time, by non christians who think they have the right to say no prayer in school.

Or by protesting against christians for practicing their beleifs. What I don't understand is why don't they leave this alone. They are not being forced to practice the religion, they are just being asked to tolerate it. Just as christians should tolerate other religions as well.
reply report
1. 78
  MickeySrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The idea of the Untied States being founded on Christian principles yet being designed as a secular nation providing freedom for all to practice the religion of their choice is in perfect accord with Christianity and follows in-line with the historic record of authentic Christianity . . . it doesn't fit with the commonly held false notions of the 'Christian' religion most count as Christianity, but historically, Christianity has protected the rights of all to practice their own faith. It is, in fact, specifically authentic Christianity that can establish a secular nation guaranteeing freedom of religion - look at Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism, etc, for example . . . even under the corrupted 'Christianity' of contemporary America we struggle to protect Muslims and Hindus and atheists, etc, especially when compared to the treatment Christians receive in many Islamic and Hindu, etc, nations. A secular nation that guarantees freedom of religion is fully a fruit of authentic Christianity.
  reply report
  59
  pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The only country founded on Christianity is the Vatican.
  
  Don't know where you are getting your History but you better check the sources because, historically, for many centuries there was no freedom of religion in the so called christian nations, perhaps Dark Ages and Holy Inquisition may ring some bells...
  reply report
  78
  MickeySrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm 'getting' my history from a thorough and honest examination of the historic record rather than starting out with assumptions and bias. Taking papal Rome and The Dark Ages to be authentic Christianity is a misreading of history - consider what brought an end to The Dark Ages; it wasn't any rise and rebellion of secularism, it was Christianity that stood against popery and imperial Rome.
  
  "The only country founded on Christianity is the Vatican" is simply an absurd claim - Christians, Christians who based their Christianity on Scripture rather than their own contemporary culture, sought to return the church to authentic Christianity specifically because the religion of the Vatican was so non-Christian. This is not a matter of private interpretation or 'my religion is better than your religion', etc - you ought to consider; why is it that apostate, false, corrupt religious 'Christian' teaching and practice has always been withstood by men and movements identifying themselves as Christian . . . there is an authentic Christianity and a multitude of false religions called 'Christian'.
  reply report
  59
  pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize that it was the Catholic church who compile the so called scriptures, and basically invented Christianity as we know it today...
  reply report
  78
  MickeySrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You stated earlier "Don't know where you are getting your History but you better check the sources . . ." but I must say, this admonition seems to apply more to your remarks than mine - I'm supposing because your "Catholic" is capitalized that you are referring to the Roman Catholic church as a denomination (rather than 'catholic' as in the general or universal church) and, if so, your statement is simply historically unsound.
  
  The capitol 'C' Catholic church is specifically the Roman Catholic church and has specific features that make it the Roman Catholic church, including the priesthood and Roman pope, the mass, and various Roman doctrine, etc. The point being, there was no pope or much of the Roman Catholic doctrine until centuries after Jesus and His apostles . . . many historians will recognize Gregory I, in the 6th century, to be the first real pope (some will say Leo I in the 5th century can reasonably called the first pope). At the time of the Protestant Reformation it was called a 'reformation' because they were not trying to create some new manner of Christianity but were attempting to reform the church back to what it originally was before Rome's corruption made it far from Christian.
  
  Roman Catholicism did not at all compile the Scripture nor did it invent Christianity as we know it - that simply is not at all factually what happened.
  reply report
  59
  pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are right, Catholic as in Roman Catholic...
  
  And they told me the first pope was St Peter, those bastards, so many years in Sunday school and not one single thing they told me is true!!!
  
  Anyway here is some reading for you:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen … ical_canon
  
  And anything you find that is wrong in those articles, please correct it, it's Wikipedia, give your contribute please.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  pedrog - maybe you're confusing Peter and the first pope. Peter is the metaphorical rock upon which the Christian church is built. The Pope is believed to be the liason between God and the people for Catholics. If you're a Christian, the Bible states that you are to bow to the spiritual authority of the church leaders. This is why the Pope is so revered.
  reply report
2. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  protesting against christians for practicing their beleifs. What I don't understand is why don't they leave this alone. They are not being forced to practice the religion, they are just being asked to tolerate it. Just as christians should tolerate other religions as well.
  
  The problem is that no One, not even the Supreme Court of the United States of America can seem to
  understand that the purpose of the Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with Religious Practices.
  It only has to do with substituting the Rule of Law for the Self-ish Righteousness of the Church, to prevent the enslavement of the People, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, by the Moral, the Self-Righteousness, of the Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees.
  reply report
88
suzettenaplesposted 12 years ago
When people say our country was founded on Christianity or Christian values it is true. The first people to settle in Massachusetts were Pilgrims and Puritans who were looking for religious freedom. They built the first settlements here in the New World in the 1600's. These people were Christians. By the 1770's and the colonies quest for independence, yes the men leading the revolution, the founding fathers, were Deists. They were men of the Enlightenment and many of these men belonged to the Masons. So, because these men were enlightened and deists they believed in a separation of church and state, because of what the Pilgrims and Purtitans had experienced in England before coming to the New World. Therefore, you are correct: no where in the constitution or the declaration of independence will you find anything mentioning religion or Christianity, except for the First Amendment which gives us the freedom of religious belief in this country. But, because the original settlers came here for religious freedom and where Christians we do say our country was founded on Christianity. For over 200 years our country followed the Judeo-Chrisitian beliefs and values; however, today that is changing.
Also, don't forget, on our paper currency it does say "In God We Trust."
reply report
1. 78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  What year was this added. To the Paper? To the Coin?
  
  I would say this country was founded by "Christians" (Puritans fleeing persecution from other "christians) but not founded on Christianity.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know FDR added the pyramid, the all seeing eye, the words new world order in latin (novus ordo seclorum), so it was probably then that the words in god we trust were added.
  reply report
2. 96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is not quite correct. The first Roanoke colony, in Va., was landed in 1585, with a second one a little later. Both colonies died out, but neither was composed of anyone fleeing religion.
  
  Jamestown Landing was founded in 1607 as a combination commercial venture/ penal colony. Another similar colony was landed in northern Va. a few years later.
  
  The Mayflower didn't leave England until 1620 - out of 102 passengers, 41 were Puritans. Eight years after these "pilgrims" the mass of Puritans settled Salem, Mass. in 1628.
  
  The English occupation of the Americas was based on commerce and jail use, not religion, for many years.
  reply report
76
Oztinatoposted 10 years ago
Whao just a minute.....back up just a little
The first "pilgrim" colonists came to the Americas to get away from religious persecution not to establish a land of religious persecution.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, the first settlement, Jamestown Landing in what is now Virginia, was a combination penal colony/trading post. It had nothing to do with religion and the settlers were NOT fleeing from religious persecution.
  
  The second, Plymouth, was not so much fleeing persecution as a desire to set up a culture where THEY could persecute others - which they did with a vengeance. Check out the Puritans reaction to a maypole in the nearby town of Merrymount: http://www.oldenwilde.org/srasmus/olden … mount.html and then think about who it was that murdered witches.
  reply report
  0
  Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, wilderness. This is one of the saddest statements about humanity that I've ever seen, and unfortunately altogether true. We're all this way. We get to the point where we feel we aren't accepted and move on to a place where we can instantly begin to exclude others.
  
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  *shrug* Better, seems to me, that those that can't get along with their neighbors find another place to live. The sad thing is that when that is done the result is all too often something like the Puritans, who ran roughshod over everyone they possibly could.
  
  But it's nothing new at all. Many of the cults we see go wrong started as just getting away from any watchful eyes. Jim Jones, Branch Davidians, etc. all had to get away from their neighbors to accomplish what they did.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Dont go stereotyping all religions based on a few bad apples or you might start to look like a bigot.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Read carefully, looking for the word "cult". Think that makes a little difference in just who is being spoken of?
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  All religions began as cults. The word cult only achieved a bad connotation in the 20th Century. The ancient Romans for example loved foreign cults.
  If a person lumps all religions and cults together they are acting in a bigoted manner. (This makes the atheist leader Dawkins and the like the worst bigots currently on the earth).
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There are some common denominators in a cult. A very strong leadership, forming rules that must be obeyed without question. General secrecy from the public view, especially financial secrecy. Lack of appeals process. Successful efforts to separate the cult believers from public interaction.
  
  And no, not all churches/religions started that way.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  what about the moral the Self-righteousness??
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  America, and similar democracies were built on "the rule of law ".
  So what's your objections to it?
  
  The separation of church & state was merely a mechanism to prevent one dictating to the other! Period!
  
  As for constantly ranting "self-righteous" , you need a standard to compare it to.
  
  Righteous in respect of what?
  One has to obey a law, to be (in righteous standing) to that law.
  
  So, any and all who break the law of the land, "rule of law ", are UN-righteous!
  
  Your argument makes no sense, since it doesn't seem to bear the above principle out.
  
  So, as far as I can tell, it's all "clear as mud "!
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Bigfoot lives in the Bush... look for it under www...
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Might want to crack open a history book.
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

(UC) "We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

(UC) "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." Thomas Jefferson

(UC) "It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be."
John Adams

http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/quotes-f … nd-america
reply report
1. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  "Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be."
  John Adams
  
  That is exactly what Islam has done; the Fundamentalist Muslim, Isis, is Planning, simply wants to destroy the decadence born of the pursuit of Happiness.
  
  Islam Abhors Happiness, the Passion of the Holy Spirit.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Our nation was founded by psychologically sound men who believed in the power of the individual to live his life by the guiding principals found in the Bible… Who can say that the New Testament of the Bible is a not powerful source of inspiration leading us to our inner souls where wisdom, intelligence, positivity and strength lie?
  
  I have heard that part of Islam's original intent was to destroy the blue eyed devil.. who knows who that was meant to be...Turkish people have blue eyes! That sounds pretty ignorant. But, then, I know nothing about Islam. I think we all need to take a peek into the Koran. And get ready to pray to Allah a couple of times a day. (?)
  
  You said, "If you had the separation of Church and State in the Islamic World, allowing the Rule of Law to govern the People, Freedom would rein,"
  This statement makes sense.
  
  But then, you said, "Isis, Fundamentalist Islam would not exist; the Rule of Law would the set the People Free to follow the only good law, *No Law,* God's Law of Boundlessness."
  This one, not so much.
  
  Obviously, you are coming from the point of view of anarchy, which seems to be all the rage…with those who like to... rage...
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
"I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Source - America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, ed. William J. Federer, FAME publishing, Inc. 1994

Thomas Jefferson:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." 1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..." April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus....I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
James Madison
"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government." June 20, 1785

"It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian." In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

"We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations." March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia.]

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html
reply report
1. 59
  vector7posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The sheer inability to deny the fact stands boldy in your posts. But make no mistake of this fact, that they will as always continue to argue a proven point.
  
  I haven't been on this site due to the ignorance and personal agenda portrayed here in quite some length of time. It's good that you posted all this golden factual information, because some seek honest answers. But don't let your incredible abilities be reduced to silly and petty bickering. They've pulled a many a person from logical and civil conduct, into childish and unreasonable, no, utterly unprofitable communication and conduct.
  
  And I'm talking to ANYONE who is on the same wavelength as this poster, you know who you are in your heart.
  
  God bless the honest, God bless the understanding, God bless the humble.
  
  Thanks for the posts Miss Hill.
  
  Stay cool.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524Tf0dNRNw
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I have to agree - the US was definitely founded on Christian principles. Stolen from the natives, who were wiped out by force, then built using slave labor and indentured servants. Sounds Christian to me.
  
  God bless those that commit genocide and steal.
  reply report
  59
  vector7posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Twisted as the words from the serpent that begun the very practice of deception.
  
  Here is the very reason I left dear ladies and gentlemen. A useful example of useless, skewed, perverted, and needless to point out to any intellectual incorrect.
  
  Imprint these words carefully anyone who wishes to rise above the capacity of a deaf, dumb, and blind child:
  
  Note the silly and desperate methods used against indesputable facts, and refuse to communicate directly with foolishness. Communicate with productive people who admit truth and seek it. Don't respond to ridiculous "attacks" where diligently contemplated logic should be painted in clear, honest, useful thoughts.
  
  My hat is off to ALL of the people who hold to humility and respectfulness in these forums and continue, honestly in their hearts, to work toward the good of others in spite of the chaos thrown in their face. May God greatly bless you, I know what it's like..
  
  And with that ladies and gents, I'll tip my hat and be off, at least of this thread indefinitely. The case has been closed, and the horse being beaten is decayed flesh now turned fertile dirt. I planted my seed, but they'll probably beat it to death too.
  
  Stay cool
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So - the US was not stolen from the natives and built using slave labor? And the bible condemns none of these. Who is twisting here - me or thee?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No to both. We bought Manhattan and most of the rest was free for the taking; the culture did not view ownership the same way. And the US was not built by slaves; they enriched plantation owners while the north built the country with the industrial revolution. A slave economy cannot compete with a free one, and is pretty much incapable of building much of anything.
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Free for the taking. OK. No wars with the Natives over ownership. No slaves in the North.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not a real good Indian researcher, but weren't the wars primarily because of Europeans decimating the food they needed along with insisting that they (europeans) owned the land somehow? Plus of course the almost inevitable insistance that the Indians convert to Christianity.
  
  And no, slavery in the north never was very big and was illegal by the civil war time.
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Slavery was not big in the north? You sure about that?
  
  http://www.bigdrumnation.org/notes/blac … _month.htm
  
  So the land was not "free for the taking" was it?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess you learn something every day. 20% of the population in NYC were slaves - something I'd never imagined.
  
  Don't understand the "free for the taking", though. When someone chose a piece of land and built a home or farm, who did they pay?
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The "free," was not simple payment. The Indians were living off the land that then became "owned" by the immigrants. Free as in not being used is different to free as in not being paid for. Clearly the natives were in the way and the resulting wars and forced relocations meant the land became "free." Thus the land was taken from the original "owners" even though they had no concept of ownership.
  
  Thus the US was indeed built by slaves (and indentured servants which are not much more than slaves) and land theft. Neither of which the bible condemns by the way. Therefore the US was built on christianity.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting how it was your own ancestors who did the occupying.
  
  Blame the Brits, I say.
  
  The US was not their only target, neither.
  How does the old cliche' go? "The sun never sets on the British Empire".
  
  Great heritage you have. I'd say, "don't throw stones.and all that."
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Yes I am aware that my Christian ancestors did an awful lot of bad things in the name of King and God. Guess that is why I so despise both nationalism and religion. Odd that you don't. That is the problem with believing you have god telling you what to do into your head. You seem incapable of learning anything from the past.
  
  Which commandment was it tells you to judge others again?
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I thought I was relating history to you.
  
  Perhaps you need to check your interpreter, to see if it's malfunctioning.
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Blame the Brits," "your own ancestors" and "Great heritage" is relating history? How odd - so - you accept that all the disgusting things done by Christians are part of your heritage and you should accept some responsibility and "not throw stones" ? And you still choose to follow their path?
  report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I thought so!
  Broken.
  
  You might want to look into that. Just a suggestion.
  report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No commandment to behave as you do then?
  
  Save me a seat by the fire.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Traits learned from our European fore fathers. I suppose we could have followed in their footsteps and turned them into slave labor, created apartheid and continued the terrorization through until the late 20th century. Then abandon the country in fear and watch the mess we created through our own greed and selfish delusions of grandeur implode.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  By the British Rebels.
  
  Those horrible founding fathers. Can you imagine the awful desire to be free from Mother England, and it's "Christianity".
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  R-atheist
  do the words online "sock puppet" mean anything to you?
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is certainly what you appear to be. Your point?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Vector7, I know you put this into the mix of all you said.
  "But don't let your incredible abilities be reduced to silly and petty bickering. They've pulled a many a person from logical and civil conduct, into childish and unreasonable, no, utterly unprofitable communication and conduct." I am confused by it. ( Of course, I would be…)
  
  however… It is important to note that a democracy REQUIRES morals in order to maintain it.
  
  The founding fathers knew that We must believe in God and Spirit and All Goodness which is granted by Our Father, the creator of all that exists. If we don't believe in God then we might as well employ a dictator to rule us.
  reply report
  58
  Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Must," believe huh? Sound very dictatorial. Thank goodness they had the common sense to say exactly the opposite. You think the US is a democracy? Dread to think what would happen if the US was actually a democracy. 60% of you think evolution is a lie. *shudders*
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good catch.. *must* in that post refers to consequences. Without morals, a democracy will not work. Without morals a democracy will fail. To maintain a democracy morals are required. I hope this clarifying makes the word *must* more acceptable, RA.
  reply report
0
Motown2Chitownposted 10 years ago
What I find most entertaining about this discussion is that many of the quotes attributed to some of the great men in history would have the same people arguing that America is a Christian nation founded by Christian men telling those same men that they are not true Christians.

First, while Jefferson calls himself a true Christian (one who follows the doctrines of Jesus Christ), he does not claim Christ to be God or even the Son of God. Strike one.

Second, only one of these men claimed that the country was born of Christianity, at least as mentioned here, and that is Patrick Henry. The rest refer to God, the Almighty Creator, the Supreme Provider, Divine Providence, etc... Christians call that wishy-washy and lukewarm. No mention of Jesus. And the Christians who think that way love, love, love to tell you what happens to those who are lukewarm.

Lastly, make all mention of following the Bible that you wish, but the truth of the matter is this: Jesus is the word of God. We are called to worship HIM as Christians. While the bible is important to us, I can point to millions upon millions who know the bible like the back of their hand, but have never met Christ.

The men who founded this nation believed in God, if history can be believed. They didn't give a flying fig about church, or legalistic interpretations of scripture...and they certainly didn't feel that either had a place in the governance of the nation they brought into existence.

At least IMO.
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
I wonder what Benjamin Franklin meant by this?
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin

- and another: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself." Thomas Jefferson

What is "primitive Christianity?" What are the "corruptions of Christianity?"

BTW I think the founding fathers were Unitarians for the most part.
Unitarian: " A person, esp. a Christian, who asserts the unity of God and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity." Dictionary.
(I call myself a Christian even though I do not believe that Jesus was God. He never said "I am God."
PS This can of worms should NOT be opened here.)
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In Canada a 100 years ago, people were 98% Christian, can imagine the USA was some what the same. Can you imagine anyone back then (like today) could get elected for anything, if they did not claim they were Christian. Remember the greatest American pastime is lying, he lied for a good cause.
  So much for free will
  reply report
56
Mani39posted 10 years ago
how it founded on christianity and her first president is George Washington a freemacon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply report
1. 59
  scooterbarksposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you are saying George Washington was a "Freemason"?
  
  I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I refuse to label myself a “Christian” for two reasons : 1) I do not attach labels to myself or anyone else. 2) The term “Christian” came into existence in Rome to describe a religious sect that worshiped Jesus Christ in defiance of the Emperor who called himself a god. I do not live in ancient Rome, and I defy an entirely different bevy of false gods.
  
  To postulate that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation” is to err on two basic levels. 1) Nowhere in the Gospels does one find any reference that could be used to institute the ‘founding’ of a nation or any other political entity. The only reference connecting religion and government comes from Jesus himself: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21; “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Mark 12:17; “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Luke 20:25. There nothing in Scripture that would admonish a follower of Jesus Christ to set up an earthly kingdom or nation, rather quite the opposite is closer to the teachings of Jesus. 2) The American revolution was not triggered by any sort of religious teachings; the colonists revolted against the Crown because they considered themselves to be English freemen whose freedoms were being taken away. Their discontent began with the Proclamation of 1763 which required them to cease their westward expansion and to leave the lands they had settled and return to the original colonies. The land they must leave would be turned over to the Indians. The Crown did this because they wanted to win the Indians over to their side in their war with the French. There were many other abuses called the Intolerable Acts, and the English freemen living in America had enough and rebelled.
  
  After Independence was won, the Founders determined that no religion would govern the lives of the people; they were free to embrace and practice any religion they wished, or not. They did not prohibit religious practice in or out of government, they simply didn’t mix religion with government administration.
  
  The Founders did not institute the United States as a “Christian” nation, nor as a “Non-Christian” nation. The issue of religion was not germane to governance in the new country one way or the other.
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
Freemasonry refers to the principles, institutions, and practices of the fraternal order of the Free and Accepted Masons. The largest worldwide society, Freemasonry is an organization of men based on the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man," using builders' tools as symbols to teach basic moral truths generally accepted by persons of good will. Their motto is "morality in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true." It is religious in that a belief in a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul are the two prime requirements for membership, but it is nonsectarian in that no religious test is used.1 The purpose of Freemasonry is to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people.
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, Robert Livingston, and 35 other lesser known men who were signers of the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution. (It should be noted that there were also a number of the founding fathers who condemned masonry: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner.) Other notable men in history who have been Freemasons include Mozart, Henry Ford, Rudyard Kipling, Gerald Ford, Norman Vincent Peale, Douglas MacArthur, and Will Rogers.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/masons.htm (The above were quotes from this site... forgot to acknowledge source.)
  reply report
2. 52
  wayne92587posted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn L Hill posted 7 months ago
  
  “It is important to note that a democracy REQUIRES morals in order to maintain it”.
  
  "I wonder what Benjamin Franklin meant by this?
  "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin"
  
  Wayne wrote; Moral Law is an Abomination.
  
  Benjamin Franklin knew nothing of the Moral Law of Islam, Sharia, as Interpreted by the Righteousness of the Fundamentalist Muslim, Isis.
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

The United States was not founded on Christianity.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

The United States was not founded on Christianity.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies