So as those socialist, communist, pagan worshiping atheists try and take over our country, we must stand strong and remember and remind everyone else that we are a "Christian nation." And that the founding fathers, (e.g. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine) founded this nation with the aims for the United States to be a Christian Nation.
So we shout to the God of heaven to help us in this time of crisis. Gays are marrying. Universal healthcare is authorized. Aids is being implanted on anyone the government wills. Alas, our nation has gone wayward and away from it's Christian roots.
Sound the Alarms!
Vote Palin 2012! (sarcasm implied).
And we also like pointing out that separation of church and state is found no where in the constitution.
And amidst this decrepit nation, we have somewhere along the way forgot to check out the facts....
The United States was never nor was ever intended to be a Christian nation.
While Christianity was the underlying ideology of the US en masse at the founding of the nation, this had absolutely no bearing on the principles the government was based in. Rather the government was based in a lot of philosophy that was going around in it's day and also the magna carta (if you are not sure what the magna carta is please see the wikipedia article because frankly i don't even remember what it says, I just know it was made by the British in like 1200 A.D. or something)...
As per the philosophy of the day....
there was a popular little idea called Deism.
And you're probably not going to like what it is.
So what's the big deal about this deism that was so popular in the days of the founding fathers....
well these guys believed in it.....
- Benjamin Franklin
- John Adams
- George Washington (Maybe)
- James Madison
- Thomas Jefferson
- Alexander Hamilton (Maybe)
- Thomas Paine
Notice that the constitution never mentions Christ. Notice that any reference to a deity is precisely that...The deity is purposefully written about as "God" and nothing more. With this in mind, we have no more claim over this nation than the Muslims or Jews do who also believe in "God." Thomas Jefferson originally did not want any reference to God in the Declaration of Independence.
For goodness sake, Thomas Jefferson created his own bible which crossed out any reference to Jesus doing anything miraculous (because miracles weren't possible), and thus TJ believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher but nothing more....(that means he didn't believe Jesus ever resurrected)
So if they founders weren't very Christian in their beliefs, how do we confuse the idea that this is a "Christian nation?"
Beats me. All i know is the new testament repeatedly has us not relying on the government for our religion for Romans 13 tells us that the government was simply created by God to command justice on earth.
And people may wonder what the big deal is....
We cannot count on the government to serve as our guide for Christianity nor Christian morals. We may and should vote as per the voice we are entitled to in this republic, but to confuse America as being responsible to possess our Christian ideologies is near idolatrous as we then put our trust in a human government that claims to represent God and thus allow us to forsake our obligations to God himself...
Note: The words "In God we trust" were not in US currency until the 1950's.
(here's the link to my book again (see post #152 for more explanation): http://www.box.net/shared/ziouz3yihk)
And people may wonder what the big deal is....
We cannot count on the government to serve as our guide for Christianity nor Christian morals. We may and should vote as per the voice we are entitled to in this republic, but to confuse America as being responsible to possess our Christian ideologies is near idolatrous as we then put our trust in a human government that claims to represent God and thus allow us to forsake our obligations to God himself...
Note: The words "In God we trust" were not in US currency until the 1950's.
(here's the link to my book again (see post #152 for more explanation): http://www.box.net/shared/ziouz3yihk)
Oh no you di'nt just go there!!! *snap snap snap of fingers*
ReplyDeleteHow dare you call out MORE names in your post! Who are you to be dropping names and bad mouthing our founding fathers!?
Note the sarcasm.
Your post just made my day. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you a 1000 times over for posting the truth.
ReplyDeleteHa - that's awesome. A much needed statement with all the political nonsense that gets spouted in our circles.
ReplyDeleteSACRED COW!! Good job on the post. Interested to seeing comments of objectors and seeing what sort of discussion we have here.
ReplyDeleteapplestolics love politicks don't they, haha
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. All the political talk and there's not one detractor?????
ReplyDeleteCome on!
Somewhere Glenn Beck is crying....
ReplyDeleteSaying the U.S. is not a Christian nation is like saying the U.S. is not a Capitalist nation--sure, it's not explicitly found in the constitution, and the founding fathers had weird ideas about it, but it's so ingrained in Western culture (both then and now) that you can't really argue otherwise.
ReplyDeleteReally it's a question of "what is" verses "what should be," and when your talking about "what is," you can't deny that the majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians (wikipedia). Sure, you can argue about the specific nature and level of intensity of their (and the founding father's) religious practices, but in the end that's between them and their god.
FINALLY! Someone to challenge the post. Thank you for showing up.
ReplyDeleteBut is America a free society based on Natural Law, that consists of majority Christians, or is it a "Christian nation?"
Let's face it, the way some would say it, our Founding Fathers prayed three times a day, fasted on Fridays, tithed and were hard-core Dispensationalist. It's just a little dose of truth.
Anons above,
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting! As a political science major I was hoping some kind of discussion would gather, but to no avail...
First, (and this addressed to the anonymous two above), I would have you reconsider the idea as the U.S. being an implied Christian nation. If you were solely referring to the found fathers as being capitalists, I could allow such a point. But as for today, I think calling this nation capitalist would be a large misstep in assumptions. I could get more detailed about this, but I don't think you were actually making the point as the US as a capitalist from what I can tell...
Secondly, as to your point about us being a Christian nation via statistical purposes. And this is a very very important point you bring up...
First, I would consider it that it's not 76% who consider them Christian, but rather 76% who ally themselves with the many different kinds of Christianities. When I hear "Christian nation," this is a very loaded statement. I cannot recall ever hearing a black liberal theologian who was also Christian proudly saying the US is a "Christian nation." But rather those who call for the U.S. to be a Christian nation belong to the Fundamentalist Right where when "Christian nation" is used, it also implies pro-life and anti-gay marriage (and yes I acknowledge that stereotype of which I am making). When someone reminds me that the US is not a Christian nation, I really feel what they mean is that prayer needs to be allowed in schools, abortion stopped, etc... (I am not saying these stances are bad at all).
But the reality is the fundementalist right is not all of the CHristian 76%. That 76% is as diverse in their political views as the tower of babel was in languages. Most Catholics are liberal. 90% of black Christians are democrat. So, when we say "Christian nation" I would quickly respond "whose idea of Christian nation?" Is it the liberal Christian who sees Christianity as a point of contact for progressivism and environmental reform? Or the Christian nation who sees Christianity as never-changing and thus is mired in calls for tradition no stem cell research. And we know that the fundementalist Christians who argue that America is a Christian nation are not in the majority, but more somewhere around 35-40% of the nation (i am going completely off memory, so it could be off by 1-2% either way).
What I am getting it is saying that Christianity is the majority religion in America because 76% of us are self-professed Christians is about the same to me as saying that the United States is a Female nation because 51% of our population is female (it may be 52%). Even though females and Christians are in the majority, there is absolutely no consensus amongst these majorities to come to any kind of agreement about what is "Christian" or what is "female" at all.
How about instead of the rambling paragraphs directing us to your political science achievements...how about instead just saying that 76 percent of the people profess they believe in Christ, they accept the Bible to one degree or another. That would not make it a non-christian nation would it? Just the few people on this website cant agree what is christian and what is not, why would you expect the whole of christendom to do so?
ReplyDeleteRiley, you did what they refer to as a bait and switch. The comment was not about what type christian they were,....the comment was that the majority of the nation was christian....which that statement is undeniably true. By the definition that they are using in the polls...this is a true statistic. But I can see where it would make for a better argument on the blog if you do the bait and switch. Second anonymous...Your point was completely correct, on point, but side stepped by Riley.
Third anonymous, This is not a christian nation,,, it is a free society with a majority of christians, however we look at South American countries and may refer to them as a catholic nation,leaning on the majority. China communist? Yet I am sure their are some elitists in the country who are quite the capitalist. New Orleans is warm and muggy, but not always. Hamburger joints sell hamburgers but not just hamburgers. Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable...? Bingo. A fruit, as is a cucumber, or squash. In fact anything with seeds is a fruit, but I doubt that you are going to ask McDonalds to keep the fruit off your burger. So I guess what I am saying,,,,needless rambling.....about male female blah blah blah
Second anonymous. YOU WIN>
The light bulb in the oval office referred to this country as a Muslim nation and even invited them to the Whitehouse to commemorate Muslim holy day and acknowledge their accomplishments.
At the same time refusing to acknowledge a National Day of Prayer.
As to abortion, one could argue that it is not a church or moral issue. If Peterson was convicted of a double homicide in Ca. for murdering his wife and their unborn child....how can they turn around and refer to that same child as a fetus, or a tumor.
Abortion speaks to us as what we have become as a people, a country,,,a nation..,not a church. Abortion is about innocent life, and ending that innocent life. And no where in our Constitution does it even hint that abortion is or should be a right. It is perhaps a convenience.....but not at all regarded as a right.
One thing I have noticed for years, usually pro-abortionists often have scheduling conflicts between abortion rallies and Dolphin safe tuna protests.
I hope this doesnt offend any of you
Teddy Roosevelt,
ReplyDeleteNo bait and switch. I did not deny that 76% of people in the United States say they are Christian. I fully accepted it. .My argument was not about who is Christian and who is not, but rather who is Christian in relation to their political ideologies...
I furthered argued that fundamentalist Christianity uses this 76% to validate their version of America as a Christian nation. Which I was showing is very poor form to do so.
As for your further critique, I really have no idea what you were saying about Catholics, communists, and tomatoes. If you were saying that while China are communists there will be exceptions, then I agree. I never made the point whatsoever that pointed to the other 24% of the nation who are not Christian. So I really have no idea what that paragraph you wrote had to do with anything.
If one were to criticize my argument, it definitely wouldn't be the bait and switch (for I took the statement as true and the furthered the implications of the argument)...Rather T R, if I were you I would be criticizing sharply my assumptions about fundamentalist Christianity and it's stereotypes. There are holes to be in my argument for goodness sake. Have at those sir! But please, if we are going to be critiquing each other's rhetoric, I suggest you do a little more reading.
But if we talk about bait and switch let's have at it. For an anti-abortion lawsuit you pointed to the Scott Peterson case. The baby that he found guilty of murdering was 8 months old. Abortion is of course illegal in this country for babies who are 8 months old. Abortions are allowed for up to the first trimester.
Meaning there was a difference according to the law of the age of the baby Scott Peterson killed and the age of the aborted baby that happens daily (3 months max). While I do not agree with this distinction, the law is by no means being illogical (if you define the beginning of life after 3 months old as the law does).
What you did was you baited people into thinking that Scott Peterson killed a baby and was found guilty of it (which was true). But then you SWITCHED the argument and said "how can they turn around and refer to that same child as a fetus."
Which I interpreted to mean that you were saying it was hypocritical for finding Scott Peterson guilty for killing and 8 month old baby but yet they allow the killing of thousands of unnamed babies through legalized abortion yearly (but I could be mistaken in my reading of your argument).
If I am not, let's continue....
But you see in terms of being consistent in argumentation, it is the law here who has committed no fault (as Conner Peterson was 8 months and legal abortions are no more than 3 months). You acted like the law is hypocritical in this stance, and while I agree with the hypocrisy of the government on the issue, I define the hypocrisy subjectively, or with some other kind of logic not mentioned here. However, the argument you used was not quite as logical.
May i suggest a political science major for you or some other equally unimportant and culturally overrated secondary degree in a liberal science college for you T R? Because while it is worthless from what I can tell in many respects, I do know that you would have not made such a hasty argument as you have done.....
But seriously man, take a breath. Shake yourself off. Over time we are going to make each other sharper.
The law does not determine that life begins after 3 months you are incorrect. The law takes no stance on when life begins. The law also known as the Laci Conner law, still refers to the child as a fetus, they take no stand on the humanity of Laci, thus my point.
ReplyDelete"The official report of the U.S. Judiciary is as follows." "The Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a mother to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy."
The debates and laws being passed in individual states today mostly deal with the incideous act of partial birth abortion, which our current president completely supports, and if that baby survives the ordeal, they are not guaranteed medical attention because the mothers choice trumps the childs attempt at life.
May I suggest a political science major for yourself. And completely shook off here....this is mere sport, dont make it so easy.
T R,
ReplyDeletesource for your quote please...
The United States Judiciary Committee, do the homework. The legal system in this country will take no stand on when life begins, stating that if medical professionals are at odds making this determination, how would the Judicial System be more capable.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is this country is moving to Infanticide, and in this I am completely correct. There are centers that will perfom parial birth aborions, in fact one of the only few doctors who would perform a late term abortion in this country was killed last year I believe in May....late term refers to a fetus that would be viable outside the womb.
And lets face it, the only reason why the term fetus is attached to the unborn is to blur their humanity.
Why is it that even during this oil spill,,,they refer to the swamp lands that are being poluted and destroyed as the "hot beds of life."
So what is life? If in the animal kingdom or marine species scientist will make this reference to the swamp lands, by definition you cannot remove the aspect of life from the unborn.
And as far as the Christianity percentage thing...I was pointing out that your paragraphs of rambling were pointless. The anonymous was not appointing any dogma or docrinal stands to the 76 percent. He was making a factual statement. There are approximately 180 million in this country who profess Christianity who subscribe to some degree of the message of Christ. 8 million muslims.
This country, that until this moment is a free nation, the large majority profess christianity. And I suppose you know the statistics on fundamentalist Christians who use the statistic to validate their opinion of what makes a Christian nation.
I know the church that I go to, does not come from that angle at all. They do not pull of Christianity together to push their agenda.
And to be perfectly honest with you, I am opposed to Christianity convincing politicians to push the churches moral agenda. Yet I think it is completely admirable for anyone to vote for a politician who supports some of their moral views. But to put morality into the hands of corrupt politians is belittling to the God we say we serve. It is our responsibility to show the path of morality in the world.
But once again, I do not believe that abortion is a moral issue, it is an issue as old as time. When does life begin and do we accept the responsibility as a nation to protect that life.
Lastly source for your quotes?
T R,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I do not want to get sidetracked with the issue. Whether Conner is called a "fetus" or a "human" is not of consequence for the point I was making, though I can see it's importance in the overall scheme of things.
As I went and looked slightly deeper, the issue that comes up time and time again in supreme court issues over abortion is "the viability" of the life. If I remember correctly, the debate is ultimate when can a baby (or fetus) theoretically live independently of it's mother. While I made the assumption that this was no longer than the first trimester, I was corrected in that it is a 21-22 week max (wikipedia) which allows for abortion.
The partial-birth abortion issue is not about length of pregnancy (from what I understand), though I am not nearly educated enough on the issue, it's just about the legality of the style of abortion. When abortion is allowed and how it is done are two separate issues for me.
But alas I think we are straying from our original points here and quite frankly forget how we got to the issue.
I do think if there is a place we agree on it is that abortion is sad, and that you are opposed to convincing politicians to push the churches moral agenda.
Let us end this conversion in agreement.
You dont want to get side tracked with the Peterson issue, yet you took 8 paragraphs thinking that you were correcting me and putting me in my place, once you found that was not the case you want to end the debate???? Thats fun....for you...If you dont like this entry....delete it.
ReplyDeleteBut I checked with Wikipedia, to make sure that the facts I stated could be easily found ,which you might want to do also. It states that a specific surgical method of LATE ABORTION called intact dialation and extraction...(D&X), opponents dubbed PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. It has to do with the procedure and the timing both. I was specifically debating the age issue not the horrific dynamics of the procedure itself.
You speak of legal age of abortion as being the first trimester,,or 3 months,,which would be 16 weeks. Sixty seven percent of providers offer at least some second trimester abortion services, 20 percent offer abortion after 20 weeks, eight percent of clinics offer abortions at 24 weeks, while there are some that perform abortions well beyond this legally. 36 weeks and older. Now I know that you do funny things with percentages, but I think this is pretty clear cut. Allow me to give you some of the states where these very late term abortions are legal... California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois,Florida,Georgia, Washington D.C.,Pennsylvania,Connecticut,Maryland, need I search further, and I hope you notice that California where the Peterson murder took place, offers late term abortions, well past the age of viability.
In addition, if you read the Supreme Court findings they will not determine when life begins....So the debate over Peterson, is as strong now as it was when I first made it.
If the Supreme Court will not determine when life begins, how could someone be convicted of murdering something that has not been determined as life.? So by convicting Peterson of a double homicide, they determined life. If they determined indiviual life to exist within the womb, it cannot turn around and take that life away.
If they determine life to be viable at 22 to 24 weeks ,and in California perform abortions well after that, viability has no bearing in regards to abortion or murder in California.
Now I am fine with ending this conversation, but not in agreement, unless you want to finally concede and agree with me. Sincerely,
t r cited Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteIs that a statement or an acknowledgement Lisa? I believe I stated that I went to Wikipedia, for somethings, however not everything came from Wik. But whatever the case good work that you did some hw, or thanks that you read my entry to know that I went to Wik
ReplyDeleteYeah, I have no idea what this has to do with the original post. Guess I missed the sign-post somewhere in the back-and-forth.
ReplyDeletePoint is, was America founded, with intent, to be a "Christian nation" or a Lawful nation that supported individual rights? Can we still borrow our Skeptic and Deist Founding Fathers as witnesses that the nation is to be shaped by "Christianity?"
I would argue, as long as we are a Democracy, the influence of Christianity, as a sheer majority (as diverse a group that is), continues to shape many of the cultural mores, and consequently, some of the legal framework as well. But to insist that the nation itself, as in the Founder's Documents, the Founding Fathers, the ideals of the nation, are in fact, Christian, is a false idea.