Show me where does the Constitution mention Christ?

1. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents.
   "God" does not equal "Christ."
   I swear to God, yes. I swear to Jesus His son? No.
   One nation under God, ok. One nation under the Holy Trinity? Not that I've ever heard.
   Theist we may be. But Christian?
   
   The concept of "God" is much, much broader than the specific belief in Jesus Christ.
   
   Why then, do we have "Christians" claiming that our country is getting away from its Christian roots and values? Why do these people think that they -- rather than ALL OF US -- are the rightful owners of this country and its government?
   
   Separation of church and state aside, America is simply NOT Christian!!!

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The Constitution does mention Christ in an oblique way. In the date stamp.
      "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"
      
      No other mention of Jesus or God is made.
      The phrase "so help me God" does not appear in the constitution. This is the text of the Presidential Oath (or Affirmation) of office:
      
      "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."
      
      God isn't mentioned. Nor are witnesses required to swear on a Bible or utter the phrase "so help me God" in court. They must merely promise to tell the truth, and may swear or affirm on any or no book. (Most people do use a Bible, though.)
      The phrase "under God" did not  originally appear int he Pledge of allegiance. It was added in the third re-write of the pledge, in the 1950s, at about the same time "In God We Trust" was added to all the money.
      
      But a lot of people are trying to get folks to believe that God was always on the money and in the Pledge, and that God is in the Constitution. If they genuinely believe this to be true, I can forgive that, and can point them to the actual text of the Constitution and the history of the Pledge and the "In God We Trust" motto, and if they stop telling people the false history, cool.
      I utterly condemn the mendacity of the Liars for Christ who know darn well that God didn't get stuck on our money or the Pledge until the 1950s and that God doesn't show up in the Constitution at all (except on the date stamp), but still try to claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.
      
      The US is an officially secular republic. We have a Christian majority; this is indisputable. But having a Christian majority is soooo not the same as being a Christian nation.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Putting God on money is blasphemy!!imo

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "Putting God on money is blasphemy!"
            
            Heh, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about people ought to pay their taxes.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, to Caesar.  Give to caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's.  That means the money is not of God, that the two have nothing to do with each other.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting point. I wonder why then it was so important to Christians in the 50s to put God and Money together?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     God only knows!
                     LOL!

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not sure about the currency, but I do know that the reference to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was put there in the 1950s with the purpose of differentiating the US from its enemy at the time, the Soviet Union (which was officially atheist). If the currency was altered at that time, then perhaps there was a similar motivation.

                     replyreport
               2. 59

                  Apostle Jackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The love of money...is the root of all evil,not money itself.Blessings of money and material substance have always been a part of God and His chosen people.What we do with it separates paganism from true Christian's.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah. The necklace you buy with yours has a little t and they prefer ones with little stars. Religions aren't that different people.

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Spoken like a true prosperity doctrine advocate.
                     
                     Everyone I've ever met that wants to parse that line have been a devoted lover of material things.
                     
                     The apostles and Christ had squat.  The early church divided all their wealth.  Why?
                     
                     Never mind.  I've heard it all before.

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely right this nation has no Christian roots whatsoever. Except for the Pilgrims. Oh, and the Quakers. Oh wait, then there were the Puritans, Protestants, baptists as far back as the 1760's, and all the Pennsylvania sects of Mennonites, dunkers, Moravians, baptists, and Schwenkfelders, Roman Catholics in Maryland in the early 1600's, Unitarians, That whole restorationist movement, and then there were those two "Great awakenings" that happened, amongst the birth of dozens of sects of Christianity.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Nice strawman, but I never said that the US has no Christian roots at all. I simply said that the US is an officially secular nation.
         The fact that the US has a Christian majority doesn't change the fact that the US is officially secular, and that the US government derives its authority from the people, not from some otherworldy source.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I wasn't talking to you, unless Mighty mom is your alter eago.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, whoops. I thought you were replying to my post. Sorry about that.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Not a problem dude.

                  replyreport
         2. 51

            xcaliber69posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Christian Majority?  Where are you getting your information from?  Please cite you sources.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Gallup for one:
               
               http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/ident … stian.aspx
               
               http://www.gallup.com/poll/159785/rise- … -2012.aspx

               replyreport
      2. 81

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You forget the Indians, who you stole the land from.
         
         This is why ALL the chickesn are coming home to roost.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'm part Cherokee. I didn't steal any land from myself......

            replyreport
            1. 81

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "You", as in the collective you. I could have said "we", but that would have implied everybody...and some of us didn't get here til WAY past Pilgrim.
               
               But you are different than other Indians I know. You LIKE the colonialism?
               
               Or it's just might makes right? I don't get it.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Assimilation is what makes a country strong. There should be no question that this land was going to be taken over by sombody. The outcome resulting in the formation of the greatest country the world has ever seen.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Look out, your jinoism is showing.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm hardly a jinoist but I'll make sure to tuck in my patriotism around the progressives. I wouldn't want to accidentaly remind them of the greatness of the country they live in.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh yeah, and it's overwhelming abundance of evidence which points to the fact that does indeed posess Christian roots.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Actions speak louder than words.
                              
                              Look around you...you think this is Christian, I got a bridge to sell you.

                              replyreport
                           2. 73

                              Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Except the Christians who founded the country explicitly chose to found a secular republic.
                              
                              Nobody's arguing that most of the colonists were at least nominal Christians of one kind or another. They were.
                              
                              But the fact is, the government they founded derives its authority not from God but from the people, and the Constitution doesn't even mention Jesus Christ or God except in the date stamp. Seems a pretty stupid oversight for some of the cleverest minds in the world at the time...were the founders a bunch of bumblers who jest plumb fergot ta put Jaysis in th' Constitushun? Or were they brilliant guys who deliberately left Him out?

                              replyreport
      3. 59

         Apostle Jackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Christianity is not divided into different parts.All religions that claim to be Christians are not even close to the mark.The United stated states is base on paganism and self government and not Christianity.The name is used,but they cannot claim the fame.
         
         Idolatry ,self-righteousness,fornication,corruption,the great love of money,and power more defines the United States.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      Apostle Jackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I could not have said it better.This country is base on corruption,deception and self agenda.They use the title of Christian as a front to promote their own religion.They put God on money,but give Him the back seat in principals.
      It is in that respect....all Show,and No Go.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         They use the title of Christian to promote their own discriminatory, hurtful SOCIAL POLICIES. Which Jesus himself would not approve of.
         Love and tolerance are distinctly missing from these so-called "Christian" ideologies. .
         
         This is not to say there aren't devout and wonderful Christian people in this country. There are. But they are out doing Christ's work in the community and not trying to bulldog their way into our nation's laws....

         replyreport
   4. 61

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Allrighty then....."In God We Trust" is a figment of my Christian imagination, or were they referring to Allah rather than a Christian God? and would that make it okay for libs these days? 
      
      Oh, and Lawrence O'Donnell on CNBC is quite the Christian, quite the Biblical scholar, he wrapped up his show for several minutes tonight quoting "Christian" scripture...so which is it?  Liberals hate religion, or just Christianity? Or only when it suits them?  It is terribly confusing!!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The forum is about it mentioning Christ, which it doesn't, but, it also clearly wasn't written by and for atheists. Just a few generations before, an atheist could be burned like a witch, but in colonial times, it was noticed by everyone  in the community who was a church goer, and who wasn't. It was a matter of scandal to be un- christian in your ways.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The forum's intent is quite clear to any reader.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The intent seems to be to call into question the false claims that Christians have made since the Constitution put churches in their place - outside the sphere of government.
               
               Thomas Jefferson was hated by the clergy. In stone at the Jefferson Memorial these words are carved.
               
               "I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
               
               Look at the quote in context and you see that the 'tyranny' the famous quote decries is Christianity! Read it-
               
               "...had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me & enough too in their opinion..."

               replyreport
      2. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Allah is the Christian God.. just as Yahweh (sounds close to Allah doesn't it? Arabic and Hebrew are both Semetic languages) is also the Christian God.

         replyreport
   5. 75

      Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For the main part( the outward realities)I agree with your statement MM.
      
      For all of the many Church buildings(some quite ornate) and outward shows of Religious tokenism in the U.S it does seem in contrast to be very materialistic and secular society in reality.
      
      However just want to point out that most Christians believe Jesus came down 'as God' There are many scriptures that allign to that fact ,so perhaps this why the use of Gods name is see to include The Christ.
      
      Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

      replyreport
   6. 65

      Laurinzo Scottposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Although the acts of the founding fathers were'nt Christlike always, or their as the motivations of many Christians are not always reflective... they were Christians who wished to have the power to practice their faith... we have evolved as a nation to see the importance of all cultures and faiths ...have we not???

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Mklow1posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I have never heard anyone say that God is mentioned in the Constitution, but to your other question about people that say the US is a Christian country, I think they mean that most people in this county are Christians, so technically until that changes, you can't really get away from it. Minority rights, majority rules. Christianity is a religion, but it is also a moral philosophy.
      
      Morals are defined as:
      
      "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."
      
      Ethics are defined as:
      
      "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior."
      
      So, morals are technically rights and wrongs accepted by society, which is a utilitarian based belief. The good outweighs the bad and most people in this country see their own values and beliefs as good.

      replyreport
2. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Willful and Chosen Ignorance to see beyond themselves. If anything mentions "god", then a "christian" will automatically credit it to Jesus.
   
   It goes to show the stupidity of more than half the citizens who live in this country.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are many Christians who believe in separation of church and state. There are Christians who soundly reject the notion that America runs on Jesus.
      That's the point.
      I will look for a poll to see how widespread the "American is Christian" viewpoint is. I suspect it is once again our friends on the fringe....

      replyreport
      1. 60

         BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Which would be fine if there actually was a separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution.....there isn't......

         replyreport
         1. 61

            dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Freedom, however, is mentioned quite a bit. And freedom includes freedom from religion as well as to it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Of course, and nobody is shoving religion down your throat.  You are perfectly free to turn the dial, change the channel, or drive right past the church.
               
               And there still isn't a separation of church and state in the Constitution....

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually there are a number of laws restricting my freedom because I am not religious. I cannot run for public office in my native state of Maryland: it's illegal. And Maryland is not the only state with this particular law or similar ones.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, baloney.  No state can prevent you from running for office on the basis of your religion or lack thereof.
                     
                     Perhaps you could point us to a link to the law in question.  Then again...

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Certainly can.
                        
                        "Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874.
                        Article 19. Miscellaneous Provisions. § 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
                        No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
                        
                        "Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
                        
                        "North Carolina State Constitution, Article VI, Section 8:
                        Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
                        First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
                        
                        "South Carolina State Constitution, Article VI, Section 2: No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
                        
                        "The Tennessee Constitution, Article IX, Section 2 No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
                        
                        "The Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
                        
                        What was that about "baloney" again?

                        replyreport
                        1. 73

                           Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I love the Texas one: no religious test shall be required, except for this one.

                           replyreport
                        2. 60

                           tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Good for those states. In spite of the way everyone wants to try to rewrite History here we are a CHRISTIAN nation !!!! AMEN

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Hey, you're the one saying oppression and censorship are Christian attributes, not me.

                              replyreport
                        3. 60

                           BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           States are full of archaic laws that are never enforced.  I'm certain there are athiests or folks of other faiths in the governments of every one of these states.
                           
                           If this were enforced the lawsuits charging religious discrimination would be lined up around the block.....

                           replyreport
   2. 59

      Apostle Jackposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cagsil,..You don't believe in nothing,so how can you present something?Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

      replyreport
3. 89

   RachaelLeflerposted 13 years ago

   I agree for the most part with Mighty Mom and Jeff but then what do you have to say about phrases like "created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights"? I would think that means "inherently equal" or "given rights at birth because of their nature as human beings (as opposed to factors like race, class, or background)" and they used religious figures of speech because that was the norm at the time. Just like the "in the year of our Lord" thing was just the common way to write a date that even the very much non-Christian founding fathers would have used it because that was how you wrote a date back then.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Like, I would have a problem with someone saying that "creator" means that atheists do not have such rights because those rights are from God. It means that every person is born with inalienable rights, believing in human evolution doesn't change that. But the foundation of our laws is in humanism, and the belief in the worth, dignity, and rationality (ability to make choices) of every individual. It doesn't always work but if we didn't have the free exercise or establishment clauses and decided on a state religion, millions of Christians and non-believers alike would be hurt, forced to change their denomination or religion entirely or leave the country. The diversity of American religions, even if you just count factions of Christianity, create the need for religious freedom and tolerance and a separation of church and state. It's for a Christian's benefit as much as an atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I think Christians should celebrate the Constitution that gives them freedom to worship and believe that was totally unprecedented before America and far exceeds the freedom that religious groups have in other countries even today. Instead, many of them resent the fact that public schools seem to want to devote our time and money to teaching facts over magic.

         replyreport
   2. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "but then what do you have to say about phrases like "created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights"? "
      
      I say that those phrases appear in the Declaration of Independence, which was a document trying to gain support for a revolution, not a blueprint for how a country should be run.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The phrases are in the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was addressing a critical issue of the time which is hard to fathom in this day and age. That issue was the 'Divine Right of Kings.'
         
         The notion was taught and accepted - the king was appointed by god and defiance of the king was defiance of god.
         
         Jefferson created an argument that there was an implied compact between god and men which guaranteed rights to man and denial of those rights by the king invalidated the allegiance of the commoner to the king.
         
         Christians seize on the word 'Creator' with desperation and try to twist it into an endorsement of religion that virtually all Jefferson's writings deny.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Superbly intelligent argument, Doug. Good job.

            replyreport
4. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   The famous quote comes to mind; 'History is fables agreed upon.'
   
   I think many of the early Americans were more deist than Christian, including Washington. They were, out of necessity, very attuned with nature.
   
   The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
   
   An informative and interesting article about the early American beliefs, Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
   http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summ … cular.html

   replyreport
5. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Thanks Jeff and Strawman and RachelLefler.
   I did know about the insertion of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our money in the 1950s. That has gotten quite a bit of play recently.
   References to the Creator abound. But again, the Creator is NOT Jesus Christ!
   
   Here's some interesting food for thought:
   
   The American Colonies were established by Europeans; we naturally inherited the European practice of dating years from the birth of Christ. Nothing follows from this except the trivial observation that, in establishing our independence, we decided not to completely overthrow our cultural heritage.
   
   In fact, the European dating system is infused with [p]pagan[/p] holdovers that, if taken seriously, lead to exactly the opposite conclusions reached by accommodationists.
   We have a seven day week, after the model of ancient Israel, but we inherited Pagan names for these days; does the Constitution then establish Sun worship when it excepts Sunday from the ten days Presidents have to veto a bill before it becomes law?
   Does it establish worship of the Moon when it says that Congress will begin its sessions on the first Monday of December?
   Does the use of European names for months mean that the Constitution establishes worship of Julius Caesar (July) or Augustus Caesar (August)?
   The issue was a serious one for some Christians; Quakers, for example, adopted numerical references for days and months precisely to avoid objectionable Pagan names. The rejection of the Quaker system suggests that the founders read very little into their dating practices. To base an argument on those practices is to stand on extraordinarily shaky ground.
   
   "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance.
   And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord."
   That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How true. If I were going to read our laws and match them up with any other book, it would most likely be Rousseau's On the Social Contract, not the Bible with it's prescription for death by stoning for just about anything.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ""The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious."
      
      Indeed, it's just what folks did. It has about as much religious significance as saying "gesundheit" when someone sneezes.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, it appears to be a big deal as is evidenced by the current move to remove "BC and AD" for BCE and ACE. If it's not a big deal then why not leave it alone?
         
         I suppose you think that Washington, Franklin and the fellas would have had no problem with a dating system had the religious figure been Mohammed?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You're pretending.
            
            I (and most people) don't really give a darn whether you write AD or CE (Current Era) at the end of a year. I can understand the argument for the switch, and it's not invalid, but I don't think it's that big a deal.
            
            If the generally accepted convention among European powers of the time had counted dates from the birth of Mohammed, then our official documents would have been dated from the birth of Mohammed. But it wasn't. It was the convention to count from the birth of Jesus.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Pretending what?!
               
               Making the argument that the practice is "conventional" is not to make the argument as to whether or not it mattered. I'm sure if nations started dating their documents by the year that Hitler began the Third Reich (whenever that was)--it would be the year of "TR"--well, I'll just let you and the readers answer whether or not that would matter, even if Hitler's name or initials were not used.
               
               The early Americans didn't reflect your apathy toward religion. It was important. They would not have sanctioned a dating system by Mohammed, Buddah, or "Our Lord Satan."

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  They also didn't say "Our Lord Money".
                  
                  But it has become that in America, imo.
                  
                  Money is worshipped, chased, implored for, sought after-- instead of God!
                  
                  
                  And THAT, imo, is Satanism! "I will give you the world (all the things that money can buy), if you will but bow down and worship me."

                  replyreport
               2. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "Pretending what?!"
                  Pretending that everyone here who understands the secular nature of the Constitution wants to replace AD with CE, and that we think datestamps are a big deal.
                  
                  "Making the argument that the practice is "conventional" is not to make the argument as to whether or not it mattered."
                  Um, I'm not sure what you're saying?
                  
                  "I'm sure if nations started dating their documents by the year that Hitler began the Third Reich (whenever that was)--it would be the year of "TR"--well, I'll just let you and the readers answer whether or not that would matter,"
                  Wait, what? What the heck are you talking about?
                  
                  "The early Americans didn't reflect your apathy toward religion. It was important."
                  Yes, it was so important to them that they explicitly made sure that the government wouldn't establish a state religion, explicitly fobade any religious test as a requirement to hold office, and deliberately chose not to mention God in the Constitution.
                  
                  You're right that the founders weren't apathetic about religion, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

                  replyreport
         2. 89

            RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's BCE and CE, standing for Before Common Era and Common Era. And it makes sense, it's a little bit insulting to non-Christians to use Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord) dating when they don't recognize the same "Lord" as Christians do.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Then, you're only making my point and you're argument is not with me, but with the other guy that was saying that it didn't matter. You're providing grist for my mill that it does matter.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So because people in the 21st century are asserting that it's a good idea to use a different abbreviation, then a date stamp in 1787 is conclusive evidence that Christianity is the foundation of the United States?
                  
                  How does that follow? I mean, seriously, connect the dots for me, 'cos that's gotta be some impressive logic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     The intention was for it to be so ,however I guess the evidence speaks for itself.
                     
                     
                     Example: I have a lottery ticket sitting on my coffee table,does it mean I agree with gambling ? or am I supporting the charities that benefit?
                     
                     Answer : Neither

                     replyreport
                  2. 88

                     Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     To so misconstrue a discussion just to have something to say, you need to have the dots connected, but not the dots you think...

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah, so no logic at all, then. Figured as much.

                        replyreport
6. 80

   thisisoliposted 13 years ago

   While I agree with separation of church and state, I think America's most pressing issue is separation of corporation and state.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      After the Citizens United decision, I think corporation and state are doomed to a long and disastrous marriage.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Prosperity preaching my brother!!
      
      Greed is Gooooood.

      replyreport
7. 88

   Bibowenposted 13 years ago

   Show me where the Constitution mentions "democracy" or the "separation of church and state" or the "wall of separation"?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Just as it doesn't say 'freedom from religion', it's implied in the first amendment.
      
      
      The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
      Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association January 1, 1802:
      
      "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the history lesson, but Jefferson had nothing to do with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The quote you gave came from a private letter to a group of religious leaders in CN. This has no more authority than if you quoted one of Jefferson's letters on the proper treatment of his slaves.
         
         Jefferson had no part in the drafting of the Constitution or the First Amendment. The reason for the Article VI prohibition on religious tests was because many of the states had established religions at the time. Article VI and the Establishment Clause complement each other: there was to be no preference given to any particular state religious establishment, all of which were of the Christian religion.
         
         There was no such freedom as freedom "from religion." In his Farewell Address to the Nation, Washington even questioned man's patriotism that would seek to subvert the pillars of religion and morality which he said were "indispensible supports" to political prosperity.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "Jefferson had no part in the drafting of the Constitution or the First Amendment. "
            
            She didn't say that he did, and him not helping to write it doesn't change the fact that he thought it was a great idea (which is what the letter basically said).
            
            "The reason for the Article VI prohibition on religious tests was because many of the states had established religions at the time." And because the several states had majorities of different sects. There were, for example, lots of Quakers in Pennsylvania, but relatively few in other states.
            
            "there was to be no preference given to any particular state religious establishment," sort of true: there was to be no religious establishment at all under the United States. 
            
            "all of which were of the Christian religion." While true that there weren't many Jews or atheists in the colonies, the fact that the establishment clause was written to stop Congress from establishing Christianity as the state religion weakens, rather than strengthens, your argument.

            replyreport
   2. 80

      thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When it comes to a democracy, I don't much care for one political ideal being viewed as right and the other wrong simply for political gain. 
      
      Different situations need different types of political structures, that is why Americas attempt to spread democracy constantly fails.  Different cultures do not always work with democracy's (Take for instance a country such as Nigeria, the losing side obviously miffed, goes out and burns down and kills the winning party supporters.
      
      Religion wise, America unfortunately became a hotbed of religious fundamentalists who found their views finding little acceptance in Europe.  Rather than the religious sects dieing out they found a new home in America.  Visit England, France, Germany, most of Spain or Portugal and you will not find much evidence of religion, or an interest in it, from the populace at all, bar from the buildings themselves, most of which are from centuries past.
      
      I know that most of the churches in my local area survived not on services, but on community actions, local socials for the elderly, and other activities.  This in itself is a good thing, I actually approve of people being willing to build support groups for those that need them. I just think it is a shame that it requires people crazy enough to believe in some invisible being to get there.
      
      I agree that seperation of corporation and state is a long way off.  However Bush Jnr and his deals with Merryl Lynch which brought about bank deregulation are widely acknowledged to be one of the primary reasons for the economic crisis. (And Bush being told to 'wind it up' at his acceptance speech by the head of that particular company always cracks me up). 
      
      Unfortunately until American politicians begin to work for the people, and not the major corporations, things are not going to get better around here. I would like to say England was better than America in this respect, but with Blair selling us out ot the European Union it seems that we are being sold down the river at just as fast a rate as you guys.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "(And Bush being told to 'wind it up' at his acceptance speech by the head of that particular company always cracks me up).  "
         
         Not to derail the discussion, but do you have a link to video of this? I'd love to see it.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      Jonathan Jancoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Once you guarantee freedom of worship, you necessitate the separation of church and state. If you look at Christianity alone you should see this, because which interpretation of Christianity do you model the country after? Methodist? Baptist? And if it's Baptist is it First Baptist or Southern Baptist?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly! The United States wasn't patterned after any of them.
         Which is exactly why the founding fathers were so brilliant.
         They did NOT patterned this country on any version of Christianity then existing. They certainly could not have foreseen the infinite variety of Christian fellowships we have today. Not to mention immigrants from non-Christian countries who are free to worship as they choose. They are as American as any Christian, are they not?
         
         No one can deny that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were framed by men had strong beliefs. But nowhere do they suggest that America be a Christian nation.
         It's simply not there.
         
         Except for Israel, I can't think of a single country that was founded on expressly religious grounds. Anyone know different?

         replyreport
      2. 88

         Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No one is disagreeing with the institutional separation of church and state: in fact, that distinction has been a part of Christian teaching since the Roman era. But people conflate three different concepts that have to be kept separate: 1) the Establishment Clause  2) the Separation of Church and State  3) The Wall of Separation. Only the first one is constitutional; the others are extraneous. Perhaps the other two might inform us about #1 (which I doubt), but #'s 2&3 are not constitutional.

         replyreport
8. 60

   HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w85m1fSepbk

   replyreport
9. 60

   HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC586Lo- … re=related

   replyreport
10. 60

    HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years ago

    Four generations of my family and multiple family members of my family fought for this country and your freedom! I never knew my father because of vietnam, had a grand father in wwII with a bullet in his knee, a great unlce missing in action. Whether you believe in God or not, look a the back of dollar bill, In God we trust! Doesn't matter if you want to believe in Jesus or not. For as many shoulders that have lost their lives fighting for your freedom, and people that have lost family members, or suffered broken homes, you should understand there is a God, because my existance shouldn't even be here.  Whether you want to believe it or not, our country was built on christian principles! Isn't that why native americans were persecuted because they didn't believe in christ when white man took over this country. Why spiritual tribes all over the globe have been killed because of White man.  I've understood for along time doesn't matter what you are religous, or christianity, spiritual, or atheist, something is looking out for all of us, because we do have more freedoms than most people. Go ahead and say there is no God, but plenty of people have suffered and died for your freedom!

    replyreport
    1. 81

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "but plenty of people have suffered and died for your freedom!"
       
       I do not believe that anymore. They suffer and die for land and resource theft.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "Whether you believe in God or not, look a the back of dollar bill, In God we trust!"
       What's your point? What motto was put there in the 1950s, to differentiate the officially secular US from the officially atheist USSR. It wasn't every part of any founding document or even considered for the US's motto until the 1950s. (The original mottoes can still be found on the Great Seal of the United States, and none of them mentions God.)
       
       "Whether you want to believe it or not, our country was built on christian principles!"
       Really? Where, then, in the Constitution, are those principles enumerated?
       
       "Isn't that why native americans were persecuted because they didn't believe in christ when white man took over this country."
       Dude, is that really what you think? No, the native Americans were persecuted because they had the temerity to believe they also had certain inalienable rights, and among those were the right of prior occupancy when some white guy wanted to build a farm where an Indian's farm happens to be. (Eastern tribes did a lot of farming.)
       
       "Go ahead and say there is no God,..."
       Nobody is saying there's no God, at least not in this discussion. They're saying that the US is officially secular, or at least, was founded to be so. And they're correct.

       replyreport
11. 60

    HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years ago

    http://www.belcherfoundation.org/people … ngland.htm

    replyreport
12. 60

    M@ggotposted 13 years ago

    I thought Obama had promoted US to "a Muslim nation"....

    replyreport
    1. 61

       thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Where?

       replyreport
    2. 60

       BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Well, he did instruct NASA to make their primary mission "the improvement of relations with Muslim countries", as well as going on record saying he "stands with Muslims".
       
       The man may not be Muslim, but he has some interesting sympathies....

       replyreport
       1. 89

          RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          so there are muslims in space? I KNEW IT! Lol

          replyreport
          1. 89

             RachaelLeflerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             lemme guess, the space muslims conspired with space jews on Dune to plot 9/11 and infected us with thetans! AhhhhH!

             replyreport
             1. 73

                Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                So, are the Fedaykin the space Muslims and the Fremen the space Jews? Or the other way 'round?

                replyreport
       2. 61

          Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Where? You guys flat make stuff up.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel … slim-world
             
             From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
             
             Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

             replyreport
             1. 65

                Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Perfectly true. Works for me.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Anybody who is surprised by this, stand on their head......

                   replyreport
                2. 61

                   thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Me too.
                   What's your problem with this piece from Obama, Billy?  What is objectionable here?

                   replyreport
                   1. 73

                      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      If I recall, the previous president made similar noises about not freaking out and treating American Muslims badly because of the 9/11 attacks, since none of them had anything to do with them.
                      I would hope any future president would also speak up for a minority that was in danger of being victimized by a hysterical populace.

                      replyreport
       3. 61

          secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Haha yeah, he supports abortion rights and advocates tolerance of homosexuals. Sounds like a real "Muslim sympathizer" lol.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Good point lolll

             replyreport
       4. 60

          DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well Billy, 1.5 billion people on earth are Muslim - either practicing or by tradition. Trying to improve relations with a significant portion of the world is probably not a bad idea...

          replyreport
       5. 60

          DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          And by contrast, there are about 14 million Jews in the world. Compare this to 1.5 billion Muslims. The obvious question is the following: why does a relatively minor, minority religion (by comparison) like Judaism figure so highly in our pecking order and Islam does not?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Perhaps because Jewish folks have never tried to suppress us in recent history, or even in the long events of a century and more of history.  Muslims (radical) on the other hand, hate us, and want to control our country -- that is fairly known and clear to all of us.

             replyreport
             1. 81

                lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Speak for yourself.
                You can't even see what's going on right before your eyes.
                
                And btw--your version of "Christianity" is nothing to do with Jesus, IMHO. as a person quite knowledgable of his words....
                
                I don't see any of you in here even come close.
                
                To quote a bumper-sticker, hate is not a family value.

                replyreport
             2. 60

                DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I guess you said it all when you put "radical" in quotations. I would agree with you - radical Christianity (Evangelicals) and radical Islam (Al Quaeda) are at odds with each other - both would obviously like to destroy the other. And that includes Christians wanting to wipe out Moslems. But the operative word here is "radical "- most Christians aren't Evangelical and most Moslems aren't Al Quaeda. Most Moslems, the middle-class Moslems I know, go to work, raise their kids, plan for retirement and weddings, pay their taxes,  and live their lives like everyone else in the world does.

                replyreport
    3. 61

       Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       M@ggot - I want to be the first to say I love your hubs. Second, your selection of a hubname is as appropriate as a selecting a troll as an avitar.
       
       Truth in advertising is commendable.

       replyreport
13. 81

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Got it---thank you.

    replyreport
14. 66

    NateSeanposted 13 years ago

    It might have to do with how Christians butchered and tortured native Americans. I think it was also Christians that tried and killed supposed witches.
    
    Maybe those are the Christian values of which they speak.
    
    Of course, Jesus isn't mentioned then either. I'd like to think Jesus wouldn't have anything to do with abject torture and the unfair execution of other innocent people but his followers aren't always a hundred percent on what he wants.

    replyreport
15. 60

    HattieMattieMaeposted 13 years ago

    Jesus don't, man does, the point is that anyone can go to church, fill their minds with the bible but if they don't practice the example of Jesus Christ you all win, because they have it their minds, but not acting out in example what a true christian is.  Plent of people are good christians, as well as many others are not. As there are good atheists, and bad ones. I understand your points, that is what I was trying to demonstrate is christians killed native americans, but also the white men. White men and christian priniciples two seperate things as well as atheism has contributed to the worlds problems on both sides. So either way in your opinions we are all screwed because of cultural wars!  There is no point in arguing because it would take all day to look up resources and back up statements. If it was for legitimate purposes of going before a board, organization, or goverment I would take the time to do my research and back up my statements 100% but because this is a forum I have no need to go back and look up those sources I have already studies and read. I will just leave arguments to people that feel the need to argue every point that someone makes!

    replyreport
16. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Christians do not hold the patent on the words "God" "Almighty" or "Creator."
    Three lawsuits confirm the constitutionality of the motto "In God we Trust" declaring it entirely SECULAR.
    
    #1. "Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that:
    "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
    
    #2."Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al." 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The United States District Court, Western District of Texas, referring to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled that:
    "From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the [b]primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange.
    As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion."
    
    This ruling was sustained by the Fifth Circuit court. 
    
    #3. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. conducted a national survey which showed that "In God We Trust" was regarded as religious by an overwhelming percentage of U.S. citizens.
    They initiated a lawsuit on 1994-JUN-8 in Denver CO to have it removed from U.S. paper currency and coins. They also wanted it to be discontinued as the national motto.
    Their lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial, on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase!
    The Tenth-Circuit federal judge confirmed the dismissal, stating in part:
    "...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion." 5
    
    The Supreme Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that:
    
    "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." Allegheny, 492 U.S.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Since God is a religious idea, by definition any mention of God is religious in nature, on some level, or in some way, shape or form. This is technical.
       
       In general terms, of course, it is possible for a person to believe in a "God" but still lead a largely secular life. But God, as a concept, is a religious concept. It would not exist without religion.
       
       Even if the purpose of these mottos is primarily "ceremonial" or "symbolic" that does not change the underlying religious character of it.
       
       An analogy: Suppose I am a Muslim and I travel to a small town in Kansas. I set up a deli called "The Jesus Loves You Deli." Now, is this a religious activity? Well, clearly my purpose in naming my deli that way is to draw people from the surrounding, predominantly Christian, area. So it is a primarily "symbolic" purpose, or a primarily secular purpose. But does that mean the phrase is not inspired, or rooted in, religion?
       
       Of course not. I am using religious means for secular ends, and in so doing, strengthening and/or legitimating religion.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          demosthenes.lockeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          God is merely a word. like yahweh, or lord, or savior or Gaea, or Allah.  God just so happens to be the popular one over the past few centuries in a predominantly WASP country.  it is a religious word only in the context that it can be interpreted that way.
          
          what is more important than how the word can be interpreted however is what the use of the word is, or was meant to convey from the writer to the reader.  In the case of the usage of those particular words in those particular documents it is fair to assume based on the writers' history as Freemasons. who as was required by their brotherhood were deists for the most part, rather than practitioners of major organized religion. that the words were intended more for their connotation as a disorganized or unorganized belief in a power greater than oneself.
          
          therefore it is also fair to assume that God in that context has little to no association to religion per se

          replyreport
          1. 61

             secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Well, everything is merely a word. Freedom and constitution and law--these are all just words. But normally we assume that when they are written in official documents they are meant to convey certain ideas. That's what communication is.
             
             "that the words were intended more for their connotation as a disorganized or unorganized belief in a power greater than oneself."
             
             But that is a religious idea. It is an idea that would not exist without religion. Whether it is organized or disorganized, it is still religious.

             replyreport
17. 61

    JON EWALLposted 13 years ago

    HUBBERS
    ''Separation of church and state aside, America is simply NOT Christian!!!''
    
    IN THESE TROUBLED TIMES PRAY
    
    GOD BLESS AMERICA!

    replyreport
18. 61

    secularist10posted 13 years ago

    I think the Christian heritage of the US is best seen as analogous to its white racial heritage or Anglo Saxon cultural heritage. These things are real, they are really an essential part of early American development, but they are not essential to the basic principles of democracy, republicanism, constitutional law, etc.
    
    The "Christian" heritage of America is more of a social or cultural nature, rather than a legal or explicitly political one. (Although, there are a LOT of examples of very Christian-oriented laws and policies in early America, primarily on the state and local level.)
    
    Today, there is no question that socially and culturally, America is not a Christian nation. It has Christians living in it, and it has many people who call themselves "Christian," but in the aggregate it is not a Christian society in the way it was 200 years ago. I have written several hubs on this topic.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "I think the Christian heritage of the US is best seen as analogous to its white racial heritage or Anglo Saxon cultural heritage. These things are real, they are really an essential part of early American development, but they are not essential to the basic principles of democracy, republicanism, constitutional law, etc."
       
       I think this is the best way I've ever seen this argument framed. Well said indeed, Sir. Or Madam, as the case may be.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you, Jeff. And yes, I'm a "sir." Glad to see somebody agrees.

          replyreport
    2. 61

       KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You gave a good response to Mighty Mom's denigration and disregard as insignificant the 'In God we Trust' etc roots in our history...
       
       And this post is well thought out, but -- I would say that I hope that America is in reality still a predominately Christian nation (and do belive that ultimately that is a fact), despite our President's statements to the contrary.  If by some sick freak of history we are now predominately atheist or agnostic, then we can just plan and teach our children how to live in a future extremist Muslim world, which would include most especially teaching our feminine descendants to keep their mouths shut and their entire bodies covered.  Maybe have them live that way one day a week?  Perhaps our liberal and quite blinded public schools would be on board to this "teaching day" of future Muslim moments, days, weeks, lives spent suppressed.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Or maybe we could have rulers that would to force us to give birth against our will, call us sl*ts and wh*res for "opening our legs", and then take away any form of help getting through the life they order us to live.
          
          If you think this is exageration, it is not. Sl*t and wh*re are actually tame words.
          
          Hatred aimed at you? whooooooo, it's Palpable.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Really???? Do tell me more, interpret and extrapolate and exaggerate ad nauseum...........

             replyreport
             1. 60

                recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                These forums have been pretty well behaved and relatively civil for a while - I wonder which of your characters were banned to cause you to resurrect this troll ?
                
                Some levels of civilized behaviour are required for a meaningful discussion,  playground bullying, baracking and insults add nothing to discussion  - neither does constantly harassing and baiting others into making a rash response and reporting them.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Yeah, I can tell, much more civil these days in the forums, equating Christianity to a woman being forced to open their legs .......yeah quite civil.  Do you think there might be some extremist Muslim confusion? Their wives have to kind of be there for them or else.  And are they on board for abortions and adultery without stoning to death now?  No? Okay.  Wow, such confusion, must have lost my analytical abilities, darn, early dementia.
                   
                   Why then, I suppose anyone could take that response I responded to to the family dinner table right?? If so, geez I must be terribly out of line, and I must be out of touch with America, and you have pointed out something helpful to me. I just don't know how I've lived in such ignorance all these years, and I do offer my apologies.......

                   replyreport
             2. 81

                lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                No problem. I was a volunteer at an abortion clinic. You know--one of the ones used to form a human shield against the "good Christian" anti-abortioners who would show up at the clinic to hurl abuse at the young girls and women going in there...could have just been for pap-smear, these people didn't know...and they didnt care.
                
                Hatred an vitriol, that's what they showed for the "love of god".
                
                I will never forget that experience, and it almost equals the time this pastor was going to "save" me. Instantly, like selling me a watch.....and I looked at his really big rich house and said, What does he know about God?
                
                It's just sad, because the whole idea is Love, and people have turned it into something else entirely.
                
                My dad used to say What are you so cynical for?
                And I would say, dad--look around you.
                This was during the Vietnam war, and Watergate and Racism.
                Kennedy and Kennedy and King and Malcolm: now there were some dudes who could show love!!!
                Shot dead.
                ahhhhh, I'm rambling. But--This new version of mean is nothing new...so--it doesn't fool me!!

                replyreport
                1. 73

                   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   People (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, you name it) have always used religion as an excuse to be a jerk to other people. Sometimes their religion even gives them the courage to physically hurt, even torture, maim, or kill, their fellow human beings.
                   
                   Sometimes religion gives people the courage to be amazingly great.
                   
                   But it's easier to be a jerk, so guess what happens more often?
                   
                   None of this really matters to the discussion at hand, though. The US is an officially secular nation, which happens to have a Christian majority.
                   
                   The fact that non-Christian minorities are starting to assert their rights under the free exercise clause is starting to scare the willies out of a small but disproportionately noisy segment of American Christians, which I find amusing, since most of them love to talk about how America was founded on a basis of religious freedom.

                   replyreport
       2. 61

          secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          KFlippin, the secular nature of American society has nothing to do with Barack Obama. All of the statistics and data indicate that secularism, atheism, agnosticism, humanism and general non-belief have increased significantly in the last few decades. Even among those who claim a "religious" label, they lead predominantly secular lives.
          
          The actual devout and practicing Christian population of America constitutes a minority, even if a majority call themselves "Christian."
          
          Yet America is quite peaceful, prosperous and stable, despite witnessing these high rates of secular lifestyle. Moreover, the most peaceful and stable societies on earth are those where religious belief and practice is the lowest. These are not opinions, these are facts.
          
          In any case, I fail to see why greater atheism/ agnosticism must inevitably lead to extremist Islam of all things. I don't see Finland or Japan being overrun with Sharia law, and they've been pretty darn secular for generations.

          replyreport
       3. 61

          thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          We aren't atheist or agnostic or Christian or Muslim.  We are secular.  Our government officially has no dog in the hunt.  It is simply not relevant.  We don't need to subjugate women or any other crazy fear you want to foment.  It just isn't relevant to our way of governance.  The first amendment makes that our official, legal stance on the matter.
          Stop freaking out.  Lighten up, worship God as you see fit and rock on.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             demosthenes.lockeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             we is a bit to inclusive WE are all of the above and then some and regardless of what was intended the government is influenced by all of those sources.  it would have been more adept to say the Government is not any of those, and you are absolutely correct it cannot be no more so than a corporation can be because it wasn't specified on the letters of incorporation...so to speak that is.

             replyreport
          2. 61

             KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             ......." We don't need to subjugate women or any other crazy fear you want to foment."
             
             Well, that is an interesting mis-read on anything I have said.  And "we" in the USA, includes "me", you might give that some thought.  And regardless of how 'secular' America has become, Americans have generational roots in Sunday morning Christianity, just as Muslims have their roots in Friday? prayer days...the offspring of both may stray away, but the teachings are still with most generations of voting Americans today.
             
             Dang, so proud of myself, am typing this without my reading glasses, a bit blurry, but hopefully without any grievous spelling errors......

             replyreport
             1. 77

                Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Impressive! You even spelled grievous correctly!!!
                

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Cool, glad you know how to spell grievous, and glad you noticed...........   there is hope yet.

                   replyreport
             2. 61

                thebrucebeatposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                What our generational roots are and what our laws require are very different things.  Not relevant.
                So worship as you like and rock on.

                replyreport
19. 81

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Winds have already shifted.
    
    It's IsraMerica against the world.
    
    I stand with the world. IsraMerica is evil.
    
    Those among us who are for the continued killing can go with the losers, all the way to Hades.
    
    It is written. In your book!
    
    A lot of things which you profess to believe, you conveniently ignore.
    Not me--I think of those words every day.
    
    Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. What are you doing Billy?
    
    If we ever became a Christian nation, we might have a chance. As is it now, we worship money and power. About as un-Christian as you can get.
    And wholly supported by the so-called Christians!
    
    Anti-Muslim is not Christian.
    
    And terrorism knows no religion.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       demosthenes.lockeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       i like the idea's however unfortunately as individuals in a religion Christians in general have a far worse track record than any (possibly every) other major religion.  whether it be the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, lynchings, King Henry murdering his wives, the pope ignoring the holocaust as it literally drove past his window. bad people have a tendancy to manipulate the power of the worlds largest religion to suit their own ends.
       
       Muslim Terrorism is relative only to the fall of the Ottoman empire. previous to France England and the good ol' USA carving up the middle east like a freakin thanksgiving Turkey Muslims were for the most part content to stay in their own neck of the woods and mind their own business.
       
       with the exception of modern day isreal's occasionally misguided attempts at self-defense Judaism hasn't really pulled any major stunts in the past 3000 years.
       
       who left buddhists? more of a lifestyle less of a religions
       Hindus? leave the cows in india alone and your pretty much good
       Maoists? again belief in a communist leader doesnt really qualify as a religion and they've only been around for about 60 years.
       
       now if we followed the spirit of the word of god as interpreted by a 30 year old single Carpenter who spoke to the invisible man in his head (that's called schizophrenia now)  we might be better off because that whole love and peace for all mankind is very bob Marley and might leave us better off

       replyreport
20. 60

    Maembeposted 13 years ago

    A nation can't be Christian, so it really doesn't matter.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Jonathan Jancoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       How Zen

       replyreport
21. 59

    SpanStarposted 11 years ago

    Personally I find it interesting that statement "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God."
    
    If God created everything then everything Caesar owns including Caesar himself belongs to God.

    replyreport