Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 230
  1. #81  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Without the government, the law of the jungle prevails. You can maintain that your rights are inherent and inalienable, but history stands in disagreement. The Founding Fathers wrapped their actions in religion for the same reason religion exists in the first place.

    When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:


    • Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
    • The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
    • The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
    • Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
    • Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.
    However...


    • The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
    • They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.
    A Two-Sided Coin

    We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.

    First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.
    Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports....And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.

    Second, the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.
    .
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #82  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,074
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    Show me where we are a theoracy? I'll wait.
    Please find me one moment in our near 240 year existence where we have run this country as a theocracy. Again, I'll wait. And I'm still waiting for you to point out where in our founding documents where we were supposed to be a secular country. That said, I would hardly call putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse, a Nativity scene in a public park, or a little girl saying God in a poem establishing a theocracy. But you go ahead and project all you want because you are so off base on this that it almost like you're joking with us. However, petitioning or even getting the courts to intercede in those things I mentioned by Atheists is promoting a religion and that religion is Atheism. Scoff all you want but dictionary.com defines religion as:

    " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

    Whether you believe in a supreme diety or not, you have some sort of belief system on how things were created and such. But some people believe in something more strongly than others whether it's God or not in God. What I'm trying to say is based on the Atheists reaction and strong believe that there is no God makes Atheism a religion meaning to you it's OK for the Atheists to use the power of the state to push their religion on others but not the other way around.
    Last edited by NJCardFan; 12-02-2012 at 01:56 AM.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #83  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,074
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    I really have no idea what you are talking about...where did elephant dung and vaganas come into this?
    Play stupid all you want but now you are dancing around things with the grace of Fred Astaire. Well done.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #84  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,074
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    If not then why have a Bill of Rights?
    If you don't know then there is no point in furthering this discussion. But let me be of assistance. The Bill of Rights were created to enumerate the limitation of government on the individual, not granting of rights by the government to the individual. If you dispute this then perhaps you can take it up with Mr. Jefferson et. al because that is precisely what the Bill of Rights were and are.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #85  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,074
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    I'm agnostic, I could give a flip about religion.
    Evidently you do or you wouldn't be in this discussion.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #86  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Evidently you do or you wouldn't be in this discussion.
    How so, where have I indicated any concern about religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #87  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    If you don't know then there is no point in furthering this discussion. But let me be of assistance. The Bill of Rights were created to enumerate the limitation of government on the individual, not granting of rights by the government to the individual. If you dispute this then perhaps you can take it up with Mr. Jefferson et. al because that is precisely what the Bill of Rights were and are.
    The question was posed to Flgator not you and it has already been discussed...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #88  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Play stupid all you want but now you are dancing around things with the grace of Fred Astaire. Well done.
    So where did elephant dung and vaganas come into this? I never saw it mentioned pertaining to this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #89  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Please find me one moment in our near 240 year existence where we have run this country as a theocracy. Again, I'll wait.
    We are not a theoracy. Bases on our constitution all religious beliefs are treated equally.

    And I'm still waiting for you to point out where in our founding documents where we were supposed to be a secular country.
    The simple fact that a single religion is excluded would indicate that the founder believed they had created a secular document. Then there is the fact that the founders intent was to create a doucment and society where all were free. The only way to do this is through secularism, you cannot do this through any form of theoracy. Which all comes back to my origional question of whether the founder intended this country to be free.

    That said, I would hardly call putting the 10 commandments in a courthouse,
    I would, in a nation where all religion is treated equally the ten commandments have no business in a court of law.

    A Nativity scene in a public park, or a little girl saying God in a poem establishing a theocracy.
    And here I agree with you. I believe any temperary rituals to be irrelivant and I believe that the foundation of this country to be strong enough to with stand the mear mention of the word god...

    But you go ahead and project all you want because you are so off base on this that it almost like you're joking with us.

    However, petitioning or even getting the courts to intercede in those things I mentioned by Atheists is promoting a religion and that religion is Atheism. Scoff all you want but dictionary.com defines religion as
    How am I joking with you? Atheism is based on irrationalism, the same as any religion, therefore I would agree that it is a religion

    Whether you believe in a supreme diety or not, you have some sort of belief system on how things were created and such. But some people believe in something more strongly than others whether it's God or not in God. What I'm trying to say is based on the Atheists reaction and strong believe that there is no God makes Atheism a religion meaning to you it's OK for the Atheists to use the power of the state to push their religion on others but not the other way around.
    I would disagree, no where have I said it is ok for Athiests to push their view on others. In fact, it is just the opposit, as a secular document I would say that the constitution would prohibit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #90  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    .
    I've read or skimmed pretty much all of the reverse engineered narrative. As I said, I'm not saying that there weren't devout religionists amongst the Founding Fathers. We all have our own bias and emphasis. Given Joseph Campbell's concept of religion as a metaphor for understanding, and with all generosity towards intelligent men who appear irrational, we can't honestly say who sincerely believed in Doctrine and who was simply expressing himself in a lens which had the broadest appeal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •