"But this started as a Christian country!"

[hallam]

personally, i very much agree with Adams. Adams used the term 'christian' in reference to himself, but no one today who expressed his beliefs would be called christian by contemporary christians. he rejected the notion of eternal life, he rejected the divinity of jesus, he considered anyone who lived by the precepts that Jesus taught to be 'christian', regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

This statement alone shows total disregard for history as it was. If he referred to himself as a Christian and the group he was with was considered Christian, then he was a Christian. Again, socially constructed history, not history as it was. We have to go by what they at the time considered Christian, not what we think is a Christian today and retroactively apply the term.

 

[hallam]

Further Geo,

I am not going to force you to retract your statements. I am not going to heave and huff. I am just going to call you your statements that are true as true; your statements that are wrong/something I disagree with as wrong/something I disagree with and explain why they are wrong or why I disagree; and your statements that are direct lies as lies.

I can handle if you disagree. I can handle if you have a completely different philosophy as long as you explain yourself. But if you say that I said something that I never said, I am going to rebut that comment and call it for what it is whether you can handle that rebuttal or not.

 

[Plato]

I am a Christian and like Hitchens and Michael Shermer. Just because you like or even agree with a person on some issues doesn't means that you complete and totally agree with that person on every issue. So you argument here doesn't support the conclusion that Adams wasn't a Christian either. And Geo cites go to show you that Adams was Christian since he was active in a Christian Church, even buried there. Further to debate one needs someone who is actively trying to debate as well. Geo isn't. He is systematically misrepresenting my position, claiming i mean things even after I have fully rejected those intentions, and is misrepresenting history. So my abilities not withstanding, a debate takes two dance and only I have shown up with dancing shoes.

My comment towards Geo stands and will stand until he retracts. Calling someone's clearly fictitious statement as a lie is not abuse.

Further, I have no problem with the separation of Church and state either. My point has and will remain to be, that man should never be in charge of determining what is and what isn't a right. Rights always have to come from without, given to use by some external force, whatever that force maybe. the reasons for this conclusion were outlined several pages back and have never been fully countered.

I am not arguing that Adams wasn't a Christian. I am just saying "so what?" and why do you have to be so rude about it?

Lies are told by liars. Liars make incorrect statements maliciously. Merely stating an untruth is not telling a lie. It requires intent to deceive and abuse. Why would that be an appropriate response by you?

People who seriously debate disagree. And perhaps the other person is incorrect.

Still you are within the rules. You choose your own style. It just tastes bad, that's all. That's my opinion. Hooliganism replacing debate.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

How about I start calling myself a Christian. Geo's statement can be true or false depending on what definition of "Christian" you use.

 

[Geo Patric]

How about I start calling myself a Christian. Geo's statement can be true or false depending on what definition of "Christian" you use.

yeah, it tends to work out that way. Adams would call himself a christian and did. not many else would though, especially those who call themselves christians... such as the preacher who called Adams an infidel.

geo.

 

[hallam]

How about I start calling myself a Christian. Geo's statement can be true or false depending on what definition of "Christian" you use.

No. How people interpret the term today is completely different from historical fact. We have to go by what they considered "Christian" during their time. Any deviation form this is lying and revisionist history.

 

[hallam]

I am not arguing that Adams wasn't a Christian. I am just saying "so what?" and why do you have to be so rude about it?

On page 6 (post 52), he threatened me with violence if we were in the same room. I think calling his lie a lie is not rude under these conditions. But I do agree, the focus on this Adam's thing isn't important.

Lies are told by liars. Liars make incorrect statements maliciously. Merely stating an untruth is not telling a lie. It requires intent to deceive and abuse. Why would that be an appropriate response by you?

Oh, I am calling him a liar. IMO, he is maliciously being misleading here.

People who seriously debate disagree. And perhaps the other person is incorrect.

Still you are within the rules. You choose your own style. It just tastes bad, that's all. That's my opinion. Hooliganism replacing debate.

I see no reason when, he has been if not more offensive to me at least we have been as offensive to each, other why I have placate myself. I will debate when a debate can be had But I will sling mud, when mud is slung at me too.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

No. How people interpret the term today is completely different from historical fact. We have to go by what they considered "Christian" during their time. Any deviation form this is lying and revisionist history.

Whatever floats your boat pal.

 

[hallam]

Whatever floats your boat pal.

It isn't what floats my boat. It is a fact or it isn't. In this case, it wasn't. This part of history is pretty set in stone with the mountains of evidence we have from the period for famous individuals.

 

[Geo Patric]

.

Oh, I am calling him a liar. IMO, he is maliciously being misleading here.


..

your atrocious syntax aside, your religious intolerance is neither an excuse for deliberate ignorance no.rt for insulting me.

you can go to hell... and according to the laws of the faith you pretend top believe, you will.

geo.

 

[winston53660]

No. How people interpret the term today is completely different from historical fact. We have to go by what they considered "Christian" during their time. Any deviation form this is lying and revisionist history.

There were nations here before the Europeon diaspora and they were not Christian nations.

 

[Tucker Case]

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks

 

[hallam]

your atrocious syntax aside, your religious intolerance is neither an excuse for deliberate ignorance no.rt for insulting me.

you can go to hell... and according to the laws of the faith you pretend top believe, you will.

geo.

This is your opinion and still doesn't support the facts you claim to be true.

 

[hallam]

There were nations here before the Europeon diaspora and they were not Christian nations.

And I wouldn't disagree with you here. I was talking about the United States formation as a nation. I wasn't taking it past that time. However, I still never said it was a Christian nation to begin with.

 

[snbl11225]

We agreed in the beginning that our rights came from a god. How is it any different now to say that our rights come from ourselves?

This has been debated throughout the years, and is at the core argument of separation of church and state. Much as been made concerning the actual beliefs and intent of our founding fathers concerning their views of Christianity, creation, the government's role with regard to religion. Much time could be spent on this issue. Instead, I would like to quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, which 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 Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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." The preliminary treaty was signed November 4, 1796, at the end of George Washington's second term as President. It was later ratified by the Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by then President John Adams. There was no concern raised throughout the process by either any member of Congress or private citizen.

Additionally, other elements we rely on to suggest that earlier founding fathers built Christianity into our government are also misleading. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God" until June 1954. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War.

I do believe, however, that many of the ideals built into the constitution do fall within the parameters within Christian moral parameters. But I also believe that this country is founded on the presumption that it's purpose is to protect the freedom and right's of it's citizens. To do that it cannot favor one group over another. I am a Born-Again Christian. And though, there are issues where I believe that certain actions are morally wrong and that the law is wrong, I cherish my right to voice my opposition and recognize that others will have to answer in another world. Throughout this world, there are places where I would not be free to practice my religion. I have friends who are missionaries in other areas in the world who face death on a daily basis for their beliefs and a lack of right to exercise and share those beliefs. Praise God I live in America!

 

[Manc Skipper]

The "pilgrim fathers" with any connection to the original disaffected puritans of Scroby, were in a minority to the economic migrants aboard the "Mayflower"

 

[Geo Patric]

I would like to quote from the Treaty of Tripoli,

yes, the Treaty Of Tripoli, where m. Adams makes explicit that we are a secular nation, was noted earlier in the thread. But that does not keep the radical, fundamentalist christian ideologues from insisting that we conform to their religious beliefs.

I do believe, however, that many of the ideals built into the constitution do fall within the parameters within Christian moral parameters.

well, sure. They also fall withing muslim, buddhist, shinto, hindu.... take yer choice, or choose 'none of the above' . The simple fact is 'christian' morality is little if any different from the morality of other religious traditions or that of nonreligious people.. This is because they are elementary human moral predicates. The only thing truly exclusive about christian thinking is the divinity and 'messianic' nature of Jesus of Nazareth and THAT is NOT an American political or legal precept.

You could argue that many of these priniciple as they are applied were derived from christian tradition and you would be right. Of course, many were derived from classical Greco-Roman tradition too, but that doesn't make this a greek or roman nation. The fundamental notions of Liberty and freedom of expression and movement and of private property were all first formulated among British and French and German thinkers... but we are not a european nation, either.

But I also believe that this country is founded on the presumption that it's purpose is to protect the freedom and right's of it's citizens. To do that it cannot favor one group over another.

yes. and that is precisely why the amendment is there.

not only was this nation NOT founded as a christian nation, it was the founded as a refuge from the political oppression of the various sects of christianity that manipulated european political culture and repressed the liberty of its citizens.

geo.