[BruceQW]

Let's face it, they all came from a place that was oppressive, where you either believed what they told you to believe, or you were jailed or worse. Our founding fathers didn't want the same thing to happen here. That was wise.

Yes, they hoped to avoid the tyranny of royalty, and religion.

[DF9sLGSU]

Surely you don't actually believe anything published on Wiki, do you? Anyone can publish anything...so nothing can be taken as even approaching fact. There are plenty of sources that you can search for, though, that will show just how closely our original rules, constitution and Bill of Rights was based on biblical principles. Even many founding fathers thought of as diests were undoubtedly Christian, but didn't believe in the way the English Catholic church ran things.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Treaty of tripoli, article 11, 1797. Signed by James Adams.

[Lapsiks]

Unfortunately, our supreme court have taken it upon themselves to reinterpret the constitution to mean things that it absolutely doesn't say, like the whole garbage about the separation of church and state.

That garbage is based on Jefferson's own words. You know the guy who helped write the thing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. ~Thomas Jefferson The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[SoorgoBardy]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that cut all the miracles out of his bible. It may have been Jefferson.

It was Jefferson. He attempted to cut out all the "superstitions" in the bible. As he believed the moral and ethical lessons of jesus to be some of the greatest in the world. However he viewed the "superstitious" aspects as being added later and did not believe in the divinity of jesus. He viewed christians as being misled and commiting attrocities because of these superstitions. He was highly critical of christians and christianity in general.

You can read it several places online. Such as these.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jb/index.htm

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/JefJesu.html

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

[r5YOPDyk]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Treaty of tripoli, article 11, 1797. Signed by James Adams.

Actually, it definitely was based on Christian PRINCIPLES. Many people have debated it, but over and over, the debates sided with those who showed the Christian connection. However, note that the principles are a lot different than the religion. In fact, at the time of founding, the "Church" was violating quite a few Christian principles.

Time and again, though, the Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to redefine the constitution to say something that it definitely does not say, nor intend. This is not the first time this has happened, and I doubt it will be the last. Given time, I have no doubt that they will reverse themselves, as new Justices are appointed and these things are revisited. But after a time, they will swing back again. While they play with the constitution and with redefining it, unfortunately it is the average citizens that get caught in the middle.

I find it very interesting that while the Supreme Court also is bent on more and wider reaching governmental controls on so many things, Ben Franklin was a staunch supporter of smaller government and less regulation. Some have gone so far as to call him an anarchist, though I don't think I'd go quite that far. But he did believe that the power should lie in the hands of the people, not in the government. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true today.

Possibly trivia facts, possibly more than that, but the Constitution of the US was written, not by one man, but by 55. Many of these founding fathers held very strong diametrically opposed views. Also, George Washington held a belief that it wouldn't last 20 years.

[Flerdourdyged]

In fact, at the time of founding, the "Church" was violating quite a few Christian principles.

The objectionable behaviors of the "Christians" is one of the reasons so many of the founding fathers objected to making our country a "Christian" nation.

Instead, they chose to follow the ideas and ideals of the "Enlightenment" as a basis for forming our government.

Efforts to dictate laws based on various interpretations of religious doctrine is self-serving and contrary to the ideals of a democratic society.

As we see in the Muslim world, religious law is fundamentally anti-democratic and contrary to the interests of a free society.

Just as I would not want to be ruled by the Taliban, I find the idea of "Christian" rule unappealing as well.

[Itrtuawh]

Efforts to dictate laws based on various interpretations of religious doctrine is self-serving and contrary to the ideals of a democratic society.

This one, also makes for laws which do not, and can never, properly deal with reality. No law to make Pi equal to 3.0000 will ever change the mathematical relationship (some places have tried). No law to demand teaching of creationism in a science class will ever make such superstitious drivel into a real science.

etc., etc., etc. ... Way more examples exist than I've ever heard of, I'm sure most of you can provide some of them.

[VogsHoock]

The objectionable behaviors of the "Christians" is one of the reasons so many of the founding fathers objected to making our country a "Christian" nation.

Instead, they chose to follow the ideas and ideals of the "Enlightenment" as a basis for forming our government.

Efforts to dictate laws based on various interpretations of religious doctrine is self-serving and contrary to the ideals of a democratic society.

As we see in the Muslim world, religious law is fundamentally anti-democratic and contrary to the interests of a free society.

Just as I would not want to be ruled by the Taliban, I find the idea of "Christian" rule unappealing as well.

Sort of. This is the reason the nation was based on Christian principles, rather than being based on the Christian religion. The principles are far less arbitrary, while religions almost always are.

In regard to Islam, the principles of Islam are sound and good. It is the reinterpretations of Islamic law that leave something to be desired.

[JoZertekAdv]

Sort of. This is the reason the nation was based on Christian principles, rather than being based on the Christian religion. The principles are far less arbitrary, while religions almost always are.

In regard to Islam, the principles of Islam are sound and good. It is the reinterpretations of Islamic law that leave something to be desired.

Benjamin Franklin was a guiding light who helped instill the ideals of the Enlightenment into our Constitution and promoted the separation of church and state. His brilliance and generosity of spirit continues to have a positive influence today, even as we struggle through difficult and contentious times. As a Deist he lamented the religious knaves and tyrants of the day and hoped that reason would prevail.


"With regard to future bliss, I cannot help imagining that multitudes of the zealously orthodox of different sects, who at the last day may flock together in hopes of seeing each other damned, will be disappointed, and obliged to rest content With their own salvation" (Benjamin Franklin, Works, Vol. x., p. 366). It is my fervent hope that our country can be saved from the current crop of charlatans who are using religion to claim more power for themselves and thereby diminish the very foundations of our democracy.

[drlifeech]

You know, I find it halarious when people don't realize that our FOUNDING FATHERS (that is plural, though it does include Franklin), simply want to argue the point that our nation was built on Christian principles, when it has been proven so many times. It seems that they have so little faith themselves that they have a problem with the word "Christian" and can never get to or understand the word "principles". It is for this reason, every time my argument has been soundly proven, that I just drop the matter. I do, however, feel sorry for those that are so sure of themselves that they cannot or are not willing to see the truth. Unfortunately, there is little I can do to help them to grow...they don't want to acknowledge truth, no matter if it is in front of them or not.

I guess I should adopt the feeling of "Que Sera". Just never been too good at that, since I want to help people so much. (Darned Christian principles, anyway!)

[Loolasant]

But Rev. Rex, whenever you use the word "Christian" you will invoke thoughts of the religion in the mind of those you are speaking with. That's the way man's mind works.

If one were to say that our constitution was based on the concept of individual freedom (within the law) then there would be no unintended association.

And as a side note, Christians are not the only people who are supposed to be living a non-contentious life. Most philosophies and religions teach non-contention.

Religion, by any name one wishes to call it, has no part in the government of this nation.

Okay. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Peace & Love!

[HotboTgameR]

Religion, by any name one wishes to call it, has no part in the government of this nation.

I agree!

[ingeneensueva]

That is the point, though. This has nothing to do with religion, though a lot of people just can't grasp the concept...it has to do with PRINCIPLES. Oh, well, trying to get people to understand this is like trying to get a car to run without an engine or gas. People just want to be stubborn, and I guess that is their right, but they sure aren't showing themselves to be open minded and intelligent.

[Vzkdgdqx]

Hey Rex,

I will openly confess that I am hard-headed. But for you to accuse someone else of not being "open minded" might be going a little too far, don't you think?



As I said above, one cannot use the word "Christian" without invoking the thought "Christian Religion".

I do agree with the thought you are trying to convey but it is always nasty to relate government with "Christianity" or even "Christian Principles" now-a-days.

Peace & Love!

[Buincchotourbss]

The fallacy is the one in this statement: "one cannot use the word "Christian" without invoking the thought "Christian Religion"."

That is simply not true. For people that aren't open minded to ALL religions, I can understand the statement, but it still is not true.

The fact is that "Christian" means following the teaching of Jesus Christ. That does NOT mean that a person has to belong to a Christian church. I am not a Liberal by any twist of the word, but I do agree with a few liberal beliefs. I am not Buddhist, but some of their beliefs are good and thought provoking. But does that matter, really? The teachings is what is important. Our society far too often feels that they can only understand something if they "belong" to one thought group or another. That just simply and obviously is false. Unfortunately, you can't convince someone of that, if they think with their emotions rather than their mind.

[markoiutrfffdsa]

The fallacy is the one in this statement: "one cannot use the word "Christian" without invoking the thought "Christian Religion"."

That is simply not true. For people that aren't open minded to ALL religions, I can understand the statement, but it still is not true.

And I will, of course, strongly disagree with your analysis of this thought.

Just ask anyone, "Are you a Christian?" They will automatically understand your question to be asking, "Do you follow the Christian religion?"

If you ask someone if the believe and follow "Christian Principles" they would still understand the question to be asking, "Do you follow the Christian religion?"

Our brain works by association. That's the way it is.

But then, I want you and everyone else to know that I am not bashing the Christian religion. All I am saying is that "Religion" and "Government" must remain separate.

It has always been my belief that one should follow whatever life system one feels confortable with as long as it does no harm to others. But I also believe that no one has the right to force their religious beliefs on others.

I did not go to war (Vietnam) for God and country. I went to war for my country. If I were to believe in a God, my God would not want me to kill another human being. My philosophy teaches that I should not harm another animal except for the purpose of self-survival.

I do not follow Christian Principles. I follow Taoist Principles. There are many principles common to both beliefs. But I do not ask that a picture of Lao Tzu be posted somewhere in the White House or Congress. I should never be asked to swear allegiance to God by my government.

Religion and spiritual beliefs are a person's very personal affair and those beliefs should not be tampered with by government.

Even in our courts, when one is required to swear an oath on the Christian Bible is a violation of separation of Church and State.

Actually, I consider myself rather open-minded. And yes, I am liberal in two extremes - universal education and universal health care. But that is all. I do not at all support our welfare system - it sucks. But then, on the other hand, I support a system of social assistance for those 'unable' to provide for themselves.

I do not believe in the need for wars. If someone needs be killed then kill that person, not ten of thousands of innocent women and children while attempting to kill the one you want dead.

Oh, I could go on and on but I will stop (for now).

Peace & Love!

[NKUDirectory]

That is just plain wrong. What you are doing is putting YOUR spin on things, on what everyone else feels. As an experiment, I just went to Walmart (about a minute away from home) and asked 15 people if they followed Christian principles. Of the 15, 14 said yes. I then asked those 14 if they WERE Christian or belonged to a Christian church. 4 said yes, 3 said that they would have to think about it or weren't sure, and 7 said no.

Just in this small group, seven of 15 who believe in and follow Christian principles, but who admit to not being Christian? If nobody can understand the distinction, how can this possibly be?? By your assertion, if it was true, it should have been 0 of 15!

You might want to check for yourself instead of just using your own take on things and assuming that everyone else must feel the same. It is an interesting exercise.

[bonyclayd]

If you look at a dollar bill one of the designs on there is a pyramid, topped by an eye.

Pyramids pre-date the Christians, as does the idea of an all-seeing entity.

What makes me greatly concerned is that religion has been used as a political tool to great effect throughout history. It is used to claim supernatural powers and divine rights.

Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be descended from the gods. It gave the right to do pretty much anything they wanted to do.

Christians are a scary political force engaged in a fierce power grab. They claim ownership of the Constitution, rights to interpret laws, and don't seem to have many scruples in how they go about seizing power.

The separation of church and state is a basic foundation of our government and I am deeply disturbed by efforts to take that away. This Christian power grab is not what our Founding Fathers intended or wanted for our country.

[PickEmUp]

That is just plain wrong. What you are doing is putting YOUR spin on things, on what everyone else feels. As an experiment, I just went to Walmart (about a minute away from home) and asked 15 people if they followed Christian principles. Of the 15, 14 said yes. I then asked those 14 if they WERE Christian or belonged to a Christian church. 4 said yes, 3 said that they would have to think about it or weren't sure, and 7 said no.

Just in this small group, seven of 15 who believe in and follow Christian principles, but who admit to not being Christian? If nobody can understand the distinction, how can this possibly be?? By your assertion, if it was true, it should have been 0 of 15!

You might want to check for yourself instead of just using your own take on things and assuming that everyone else must feel the same. It is an interesting exercise.

He Rev. Rex,

I would conduct a survey but I would only arrange the question so that I would get the answers I wanted so that is , to me, nothing more than pissing in the wind.

This is an area that I know by now that we will never agree on.

Just goes to show that not only do people have differences of opinion but we also arrange the facts so that they fit what we believe and sometimes we even ignore the facts and continue believing the way that is comfortable for us.

And that is the state of the human brain.


Hi Fred,

What makes me greatly concerned is that religion has been used as a political tool to great effect throughout history. It is used to claim supernatural powers and divine rights.

That point is the only reason I joined this discussion. I think there have been enough King George's throughout history. We really didn't need another one.

Peace & Love!

[12Dvop4I]

If you look at a dollar bill one of the designs on there is a pyramid, topped by an eye.

Pyramids pre-date the Christians, as does the idea of an all-seeing entity.

What makes me greatly concerned is that religion has been used as a political tool to great effect throughout history. It is used to claim supernatural powers and divine rights.

Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be descended from the gods. It gave the right to do pretty much anything they wanted to do.

Christians are a scary political force engaged in a fierce power grab. They claim ownership of the Constitution, rights to interpret laws, and don't seem to have many scruples in how they go about seizing power.

The separation of church and state is a basic foundation of our government and I am deeply disturbed by efforts to take that away. This Christian power grab is not what our Founding Fathers intended or wanted for our country.

??? Okay, and there are mallard ducks in the water near here. Neither the eye of Osirus or the ducks have anything what so ever to do with the discussion. Believe it or not, there were NO dollar bills when our country was founded, and the current emblems on our money are less than a hundred years old. As it happens, our country is a tiny bit older than that. So this entire line of argument is totally invalid and meaningless.