The Founding of America

I doubt there are states that do this, most are scared of the ACLU knocking down their door. What you must remember about the First Amendment is that it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It never goes on about what the States are allowed/not allowed to do. This was done on purpose, because the framers desired a weak federal government and stronger state governments.

Anyways, my point is, because you do not believe with something, does that mean the majority must be enforced to cater to your beliefs?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Anyways, my point is, because you do not believe with something, does that mean the majority must be enforced to cater to your beliefs?
Click to expand...

It depends on what is being enforced.

I do not subscribe to any religion, therefore I stay away from religious outings, organizations and places of worship.

Public schools and sporting events are not religious events. Therefore, I would expect NOT to be subjected to religious ceremonies.

You're trying to lay down a blanket statement of majority vs minority and that doesn't apply in all cases.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 22 2004,10:40)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Anyways, my point is, because you do not believe with something, does that mean the majority must be enforced to cater to your beliefs?
Click to expand...

It depends on what is being enforced.  

I do not subscribe to any religion, therefore I stay away from religious outings, organizations and places of worship.

Public schools and sporting events are not religious events.  Therefore, I would expect NOT to be subjected to religious ceremonies.  

You're trying to lay down a blanket statement of majority vs minority and that doesn't apply in all cases.
Click to expand...
Plus it's not just people without belief that could be potentially offended by this, but non-Christians as well. We are a country of many faiths, and while most of them are monotheistic, it's not right to impose upon polytheistic beliefs, especially at something like a sporting event where religious activity is generally kept out.
 
AND as you said, there are Christians who find this public display of prayer unacceptable as well.

The people that want public prayer may not actually be in the majority at all.
 
Ok, then how about this scenario

A public servant (Civil Service, office type) has a cross as decoration in his office.

Should that civil servant be required to take down that cross?
 
In his own private office, he should be allowed to keep it.

If he sees constituents in his office, or if he is responsible for a ruling, then no, the religious symbol should not be in plain sight. It could be construed as prejudiced.

Look at it this way, if you were in court, pleading your case, would you want the judge to have an inverted pentagram behind his desK? Wouldn't that make you the least bit uncofortable and question his partiality?
 
Now you're clashing two religions Dark Virtue; you're turning this around.

Before you had already said that Atheism is not the enemy of Christianity.  So according to what you had said before, you might be apathetic towards a cross in a man's office.  You're twisting it around now and using an example that would obviously be against a particular religion by asking if Kidan would be ok with a pentragram behind a judge's desk.

To clarify: Satanism is a hostile religion to Christianity, and vice versa.  However, Atheism is not hostile to either, at least from what you've said before, so the cases would be entirely different.
 
actually, regardless of the iconography the judge wishes to decorate the court room with, I would not feel threatened, or believe that my case was being treated with overt partiality.

There are a lot of check and balances to ensure that judges have at least a modicum of impartiality, without it they have no chance of getting to the bench.

That said, there is a big difference between a judge's courtroom and a judge's chamber.  Yet the same thought applies to both.  If I came across a judge (in an official capacity) who decided to decorate his courtroom/chambers with pentagrams or Islamic iconography (i'm tired, and can't remember quite what it is...) or whatever, I would have no qualms over it.  In fact, I think I would probably be happy over it, for at least it would give me some insight into the moral makeup which colors the judge's 'impartiality'.
 
Bowser, how was I clashing? It was a simple analogy, don't read more into it than that.

While you, personally, may not have a problem with it, I think the majority of others would (when faced with a religious symbol other than the one they personally affiliate with).

In the end, it comes down to appropriateness. Is prayer appropriate during a football game? No. Is a diamond encrusted cross hanging from the neck of a gangsta rapper appropriate? No. Is prayer in schools appropriate? No.
 
*tsk* *tsk* *tsk* D.V.! D.V.! D.V.! Ms.? linkity linking a bunch of bra burners? lol
tounge.gif
You never cease to amaze me!
blues.gif
You need to go incognito after that one
wow.gif
LOL
 
Sorry. Yes, sir, I read it before I said anything.  I also took a look around to get a feel of where they stood on other issues in order to possibly get another opinion of them, rather than the one I had already formed.  

I found other sources as I stated earlier in this thread.  *sigh* We could probably agree nicely if we could find historians that did the same.  I understand each person may see things in a different light based on their experiences, if only polarity weren't involved.  There are simply sources out there on each end of the spectrum and all points in between.  I do understand that all of our forefathers were not Godly, but when they start rewriting history to say that none of them were, that bothers me.  The enemy has tried to destroy the Word from before the world was created.  I know the crumbling of our family structure tears America down little by little...but to try to change history.  

Sorry, D.V., I do not agree with most all of their views.  I feel they are so slanted and want to take women as far away from the Proverbs 31 woman as we will possibly allow them.

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

I firmly believe that it is the men and women that will stand for God that keeps us from being destroyed from the face of the earth. Just like in the days of Lot, God only wanted one to stand!

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28

I do not think anyone would be happy with the results of tearing America down from its Godly structure. It is sad, the same freedom's that give us our greatness, by the grace and mercy of God...the fight for that freedom, and the blood shed, is treated as nothing, at times, as if it never existed.
 
If any questions arise, I just look at what the founding fathers said, thought and felt.

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying you dont AGREE with the founding fathers or you don't BELIEVE they weren't Christian for the most part. Or you don't BELIEVE American was not founded as a Christian nation?

These things didn't happen THAT long ago, so historians are pretty much in agreement on the issues at hand.
 
It seem, for instance, some of the quotes I gave earlier in this thread could be refuted by your sources. I believe that we are a Christian nation, founded by Christian men and women.
 
When I searched out this topic, I came across WallBuilders.

Link

They contend and quote the founding fathers were indeed Christian. So with sources on either side of the spectrum, where does the truth fall?

I do not know much on this, but would love to be able to quote with certainty. I am surprised there is this much controversy over something that happened recently (compared to the Birth of Christ)
 
Okay! Did some research on Wallbuilders.com and it's founder/owner/historian David Barton.

To be as objective as possible, I tried to find secular AND Christian sources that define Barton's practices as highly questionable. There is quite a bit of information, and I won't comment on them at this time, but rather offer these links as is, so you can draw your own conclusion.

This link is from Wallbuilder's own site.

Unconfirmed Quotations

[b said:
Quote[/b] ](Extract)
The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).
(End extract)

Until attorneys, professors and historians questioned 14 of David Barton's "unilaterally initiated" quotes, he had published and preached them as valid. Now he is claiming that his quotes "could be" valid because they were conforming to his newly devised standard of documentation that "he claims" is a superior legal standard...whatever that is. He further claims that he relied solely on primary or original sources using best evidence. Now he admits that his new original source and best evidence legal standard resulted in the following when challenged by the very individuals upon whom he claims not to rely.

Inaccurate.........2

Unconfirmed......11

Confirmed..........1

But what is an unconfirmed quote....especially when preached and published as directly attributed to its original author(s)? A "boo-boo?" A falsehood? A clerical error? An "inferior" standard of documentation? An outright prevarication? A devious equivocation in an attempt to propagandize the American public? A lie to make the ends justify the means? (All of these and more?)

If a quote is unconfirmed, why use it? It is most certainly "not" a superior "legal standard" of documentation. As a Christian standard, it is knowingly bearing "false witness." As a legal standard, it is "perjury."
Click to expand...

RE: David Barton and his 700 Club appearance

RE: Thomas Jefferson and Bibles in School

Related Snopes Article

David Barton Links via the Constitution Principle

Wallbuilders "Consumer Alert"

Christian Commentary on Questionable Quoting

Related Article

David Barton Falsifies American History

I could have gone on and on, but I think this is sufficient. If you need more info, it's only a Google away.

I await your comments.
 
Deception + Coercion +Apathy = The Fall of America

Ears To Hear

Over 15,000 writings of America's founders were examined to determine the primary sources for establishing our government. The number one source was the Bible.  From these writings it has been determined that Jeremiah 17:9 and Isaiah 33:22 were the basis for separation of powers and America's three branches of Government. Ezra 7:24 was the premise for tax exemptions. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution was derived from Exodus 18:21 which formed the basis of a Republic form of Government. The judicial branch of government in Article III Section 3, was derived from Deuteronomy 17:6 and Ezekiel 18:20.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason people of other faiths have been afforded asylums, prosperity and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry

What kind of men were they who would pledge their life for a piece of paper which offered no promise of a certain future but the founding fathers knew that by signing the Declaration of Independence the penalty would be death if they were captured. Who were these men, and what made them different? Their occupations were varied. Their personal occupations were as diverse as the 13 original colonies they hailed from. Twenty-four signers were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants; nine were farmers and large plantation owners. What did they sacrifice? Well, five of the original signers were captured by the British as traitors, and were tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. As you can see, this is more than a casual collection of factual occurrences. Their personal sacrifice is our freedom and our inheritance. These were understandably incredible sacrifices, from common men who demonstrated uncommon valor ...

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three believed in the Bible as the divine truth, in the God of Scripture, in His personal intervention.

Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of the Scripture for the people of this nation.

Patrick Henry is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words are deleted. Here is what he actually said:

"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone, is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks. The following year, 1776, Henry wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded the freedom of worship here."

Consider these words Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front of his well worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator."  Jefferson was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role.

On July 4, 1821, President John Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of government with the principles of Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President, reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically in our country."

In 1782 Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

William Holmes McGuffey,  author of the McGuffey Reader used in our public schools until 1963,  said: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no other source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636.  In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule No.1 was students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so they can study the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

We ask God to bless America, especially as we remember the horrific tragedy of 9-11. But how can He bless a nation that has departed so far from Him?

Prior to Sept. 11, God wasn't truly welcome in America, was He?
Is He yet? Certainly that's arguable, with godless federal judges declaring the Ten Commandments inappropriate for public display after ruling our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it mentions God.

It truly is a shame most of what you read in this message has been erased from public school textbooks by revisionists intend on removing the Truth about our nation's Christian roots. What is the Truth? Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."


http://www.christianpetitions.com/petitions.php?id=227

Truth is at stake in America today. The truth of the U.S. Constitution, of American history, of God Himself is being ignored and denied.

The final battle for the truth began Aug. 25 when the Ten Commandments monument was removed from public view at the Alabama Judicial Center in Montgomery. Like America's war on terrorism, this isn't a fight conservatives and Christians wanted. It was forced on us by those sworn to harm our nation under God.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 18 2004,5:48)]Many people seem to feel that America was founded on Christian values as a Christian nation.

I don't understand why.

The original Pledge of Allegience did not include God.

Our original currency did not have "In God We Trust" on it.

Many of our Founding Fathers were DEISTS, not Christians.

Is anyone familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli?  Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Article 11 states:

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.

Is this not proof enough?  America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Click to expand...
Good Enough for me. Then I never thought the Founding fathers wanted more than the Right for all (Men /Women) To pursue God (Of what ever) as the felt best, while repecting the rights of others.

Many Settlers were Christains, some were Not, but they all wanted to be free to choose and free from pursucution of the choice.

Religous freedom.

Freedom baby yea.........

We live in a nation where we can choose what we believe in. No different from the many Letters Paul wrote. We have choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top