• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
PopeyeAtheist said:
It is this empowerment which enables Congress to establish laws. If one lays a copy of a law which regulates behavior beside a copy of the Ten Commandments, one will find that the heart of the law embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments. This usually results in a chicken or egg argument, or one of whether the similarity is intentional or coincidental.I prefer to think of the government's role as the guarantor of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not establish a national religion, as for example, was done by Henry VIII when he formed The Church of England, then, as the late Clara Peller used to ask, "Where's the beef?"
Where is the beef? In "THE" Ten comandments it says "I" will only have ONE GOD. If you put tjis in a Goverment building or school "I" will tear it down because "WE" or THE govenment "OF" the "PEOPLE" and by "THE" people not just "SOME" of the people.
You mis-read my statement. I did not write that the laws embody the precepts of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

As you can see above, my words were not what you seem to have understood, but: ".....one will find that the heart of the law [which regulates behavior] embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments." Do you not now find this to be correct?

Neither did I mention displaying the Ten Commandments in any public building.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
galenrox said:
It's difficult, because everything associated with the government should just stay out of it, but since a large part of our history is religiously based, it's hard to know where to draw the line (and considering some christians are trying to take over science too). I think if it's an act of an individual, let them do it, except if they are an employee who is at work, at which point it's up to the employer (and if the government is the employer, then they shouldn't be practicing their religion at work).
Kinda like trying to pick fly turds out of pepper.
 

PopeyeAtheist

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
You mis-read my statement. I did not write that the laws embody the precepts of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

As you can see above, my words were not what you seem to have understood, but: ".....one will find that the heart of the law [which regulates behavior] embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments." Do you not now find this to be correct?

Neither did I mention displaying the Ten Commandments in any public building.



My apologies, I stand corrected. :doh
 

PopeyeAtheist

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
You mis-read my statement. I did not write that the laws embody the precepts of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

As you can see above, my words were not what you seem to have understood, but: ".....one will find that the heart of the law [which regulates behavior] embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments." Do you not now find this to be correct?

Neither did I mention displaying the Ten Commandments in any public building.

...So then, if we follow the same precepts as the teachings of Aristotle, would it be except able to pray to Zeus before a session of congress? I know this is somewhat "far-fetched" but, the point I am making is that when did we as humans get to the point of thinking that any religion has a monopoly on right and wrong, or as I like to think, The Universal Golden Rule? (not that I am saying you have said this but as a point of debate)
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
PopeyeAtheist said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You mis-read my statement. I did not write that the laws embody the precepts of all ten of the Ten Commandments.

As you can see above, my words were not what you seem to have understood, but: ".....one will find that the heart of the law [which regulates behavior] embodies the precepts of at least one of the Commandments." Do you not now find this to be correct?

Neither did I mention displaying the Ten Commandments in any public building.
...So then, if we follow the same precepts as the teachings of Aristotle, would it be except able to pray to Zeus before a session of congress?
At every session, the Representatives stand respectfully and hear an invocation from either the permanent chaplain or a guest chaplain. I don't know which religions have been represented by the guest chaplains over the past two hundred, or so, years, but I would guess that the range has been wide.
I know this is somewhat "far-fetched" but, the point I am making is that when did we as humans get to the point of thinking that any religion has a monopoly on right and wrong, or as I like to think, The Universal Golden Rule? (not that I am saying you have said this but as a point of debate)
I don't think there is a monopoly. I think there is, as you call it, The Universal Golden Rule which is intuitive, and if the laws regulating personal behavior were compared with it, the similarities would be apparent.

In a way, the Ten Commandments may be thought of as The Universal Golden Rule with several religious embellishments.
 

9TH

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
This is the first time I have ever come across a statement that the Bill of Rights imposes limitations.

This is the first time I've come across someone who didn't know it. What then do you think it does if not limit the powers of government?

Fantasea said:
You continue by writing that, at least in my interpretation, that the precepts of one or more of the Ten Commandments is excellent inspiration for legislators. In that context, how would one determine whether, in formulating a statute, the intention of the legislators was to remain entirely secular, or to secretly slip in some devious religious practice?Religion is religion. So long as Congress ignores the matter of religion entirely, how can it go wrong?

I never said they were excellent inspiration. I merely recognize the reality that much of morality has been linked with religion. That said, what people need to do is develop their ability to separate religious/personal morality from civic/social morality. Sometimes, in a free society, the two should not coincide.
As to legislative intent, it's not so much what they were trying to do that should be considered; rather, what the law actually does. If the law has a legitimate social/secular purpose, and achieves it with the minimum intrusion on peoples' rights necessary, than the law should stand. If a legitimate social purpose cannot be found, and/or intrusion is too great, the law should go. That's what we have Judges for.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
9TH said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
This is the first time I have ever come across a statement that the Bill of Rights imposes limitations.
This is the first time I've come across someone who didn't know it. What then do you think it does if not limit the powers of government?
It enumerates the rights of the people.

Are we looking at the same thing through opposite ends of a telescope?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You continue by writing that, at least in my interpretation, that the precepts of one or more of the Ten Commandments is excellent inspiration for legislators. In that context, how would one determine whether, in formulating a statute, the intention of the legislators was to remain entirely secular, or to secretly slip in some devious religious practice?Religion is religion. So long as Congress ignores the matter of religion entirely, how can it go wrong?
I never said they were excellent inspiration. I merely recognize the reality that much of morality has been linked with religion. That said, what people need to do is develop their ability to separate religious/personal morality from civic/social morality. Sometimes, in a free society, the two should not coincide.
Easier said than done as is revealed in writings of the founding fathers quoted earlier in this forum.
As to legislative intent, it's not so much what they were trying to do that should be considered; rather, what the law actually does. If the law has a legitimate social/secular purpose, and achieves it with the minimum intrusion on peoples' rights necessary, than the law should stand. If a legitimate social purpose cannot be found, and/or intrusion is too great, the law should go. That's what we have Judges for.
And that's why many of the judges are accused of being activists who, rather than interpret what was written, find, instead, many hidden meanings which, although they lurked there unnoticed for decades, were discovered only after the ACLU provided a road map.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
At every session, the Representatives stand respectfully and hear an invocation from either the permanent chaplain or a guest chaplain. I don't know which religions have been represented by the guest chaplains over the past two hundred, or so, years, but I would guess that the range has been wide.

Did a little searching, mainly because I knew I could prove you to be wrong, and I was not disappointed by my own results.
The fact is the range of guest chaplains has NOT be wide as far as scope of religions represented in the House. Only if you mean that the range has been wide as far as denominations of the Christian faith.
In the past two hundred years only Two Faiths have ever been represented as Guest Chaplain to the House. Christianity and Judiasm. The later has only been represented FOUR TIMES in the past THREE years...and that's throughout the entire history of chaplains for the House. Pretty dismal if you ask me, in terms of "interfaith" representation.

Here are the lists provided to me by the Library of Congress on this issue:
House Chaplains 1789 - 2000


Guest Chaplains 2001 - 2005




Fantasea said:
I don't think there is a monopoly. I think there is, as you call it, The Universal Golden Rule which is intuitive, and if the laws regulating personal behavior were compared with it, the similarities would be apparent.

In a way, the Ten Commandments may be thought of as The Universal Golden Rule with several religious embellishments.


That would be a very broad brush with which you are attempting to paint all religions. I believe many would be a bit offended to have the Ten Commandments compared to their behavioral codes, or as you put it "Universal Golden Rule."
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
JustineCredible said:
Did a little searching, mainly because I knew I could prove you to be wrong, and I was not disappointed by my own results.

The fact is the range of guest chaplains has NOT be wide as far as scope of religions represented in the House. Only if you mean that the range has been wide as far as denominations of the Christian faith.
Wipe your chin. You're salivating.
In the past two hundred years only Two Faiths have ever been represented as Guest Chaplain to the House. Christianity and Judiasm.
Your reference to 'guest' Chaplains is incorrect. These are 'permanent', salaried Chaplains.

You shouldn't be faulted for making the most common of errors with respect to Christianity. It is so easy for the lazy among us to just lump all of the various and sundry Protestant religions in with the Catholic religion and call the whole bagful "Christians". These groups are as different as all of the fruits and vegetables at the local produce market. Kindly give each one its due.

Had you taken the time to look, you would have found that in two hundred sixteen years there have been a total of eleven different "religions" represented by fifty-one different permanent Chaplains. Certainly a much broader scope than you assumed.

Wow. Now what does this do to the argument as to whether the US was founded upon Christian principles? And what about that old bugaboo, "Separation of Church and State"?
The later [Judaism] has only been represented FOUR TIMES in the past THREE years...and that's throughout the entire history of chaplains for the House. Pretty dismal if you ask me, in terms of "interfaith" representation.
I have no idea why the roster of Guest Chaplains is shown for only four years. Were there no guest chaplains prior to that?

You failed to note the several women among the gueat chaplains.


Here are the lists provided to me by the Library of Congress on this issue:
House Chaplains 1789 - 2000


Guest Chaplains 2001 - 2005

That would be a very broad brush with which you are attempting to paint all religions. I believe many would be a bit offended to have the Ten Commandments compared to their behavioral codes, or as you put it "Universal Golden Rule."
Sometimes, a broad brush is required to do the job correctly.

Those who make the deliberate choice to take offense will, as always they are, be offended. On the other hand, those with broader vision will either agree or, if they disagree, will do so with the degree of civility which is the hallmark of reasonable persons.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Your reference to 'guest' Chaplains is incorrect. These are 'permanent', salaried Chaplains.

I didn't claim they did. You made that assumption. But that doesn't suprise me any, you tend to do that quite a bit then point the finger elsewhere.


Fantasea said:
You shouldn't be faulted for making the most common of errors with respect to Christianity.

But you won't hessitate in doing so anyway.

Fantasea said:
It is so easy for the lazy among us to just lump all of the various and sundry Protestant religions in with the Catholic religion and call the whole bagful "Christians". These groups are as different as all of the fruits and vegetables at the local produce market. Kindly give each one its due.

No, actually Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the savior, therefore Catholics are just as "christian" as your Prodistant buddies. You can kick and scream about it all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Just because you don't like being compared to Catholics in respect to Christianity, doesn't mean anyone has to accomodate you.



Fantasea said:
Had you taken the time to look, you would have found that in two hundred sixteen years there have been a total of eleven different "religions" represented by fifty-one different permanent Chaplains.

No, those are not "religions" per se, they are Congregational Demoninations of the same base religion. {ie, Christianity}

Fantasea said:
Certainly a much broader scope than you assumed.

Only beause you like your Name, doesnt' mean the rest of us do.


Fantasea said:
Wow. Now what does this do to the argument as to whether the US was founded upon Christian principles?

Not a damned thing, but you were the one to bring it up, so someone had to call you on it.

Fantasea said:
And what about that old bugaboo, "Separation of Church and State"?I have no idea why the roster of Guest Chaplains is shown for only four years. Were there no guest chaplains prior to that?

Is that really a question directed at me? How about you do your own leg work for a change in stead of making wild claims and not showing anything to back them up. While I rebutted your false claim and all you can do is whine that someone actually bothered to face you over it?
Get over yourself, you're just not that slick.


Fantasea said:
You failed to note the several women among the gueat chaplains.

What does that have to do with the question of religion?
Nothing.
It's just another one of your lousey attempts to deflect attention from your flagrant ignorance of facts while opting for your opinionated claims with nothing to back them up.



Fantasea said:
Sometimes, a broad brush is required to do the job correctly.

Those who make the deliberate choice to take offense will, as always they are, be offended. On the other hand, those with broader vision will either agree or, if they disagree, will do so with the degree of civility which is the hallmark of reasonable persons.


Hmmm...I suggest you take your own advise there, dear.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
JustineCredible said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Your reference to 'guest' Chaplains is incorrect. These are 'permanent', salaried Chaplains.
I didn't claim they did. You made that assumption. But that doesn't suprise me any, you tend to do that quite a bit then point the finger elsewhere.
Re-read your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You shouldn't be faulted for making the most common of errors with respect to Christianity.
But you won't hessitate in doing so anyway.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
It is so easy for the lazy among us to just lump all of the various and sundry Protestant religions in with the Catholic religion and call the whole bagful "Christians". These groups are as different as all of the fruits and vegetables at the local produce market. Kindly give each one its due.
No, actually Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the savior, therefore Catholics are just as "christian" as your Prodistant buddies. You can kick and scream about it all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Just because you don't like being compared to Catholics in respect to Christianity, doesn't mean anyone has to accomodate you.
Once again you manage to grasp the wrong end of the stick. The point you ignore is that every one of the twelve religious groups represented is a separate and distinct entity deserving of individual recognition.

In the matter of the place of Christ in religious circles, you ignored the Muslims.

Perfect and Holy

The Qur'an claims that Jesus of Nazareth knew no sin, that He was perfect and holy, whereas all other men are imperfect. Gabriel told Mary that her Son would be "without fault." The Bible confirms this truth and further relates that though Jesus was tempted in all things just as we are, He never sinned.

According to surah Ya-Sin and Mary of the Qur'an, Jesus is the only One who can advise God concerning the fate of each individual on the day of judgment. The bible, too acknowledges that "He, (God) gave Him (Jesus) authority to execute judgment". and that "...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

In the Qur'an, Jesus is seen as a direct revelation of God. Although no one has actually seen God, Jesus declared Him for, as the Bible tells us, "He is the radiance of His (God's) glory and the exact representation of His nature..." The apostle John said that Christ came to help us understand and find the true God.

Now who is this man who Qur'anic and biblical evidence reveal to be the only One ever born of a virgin, who never yielded to temptation, whose judgment of mankind is respected even by God and who is, in fact, an exact representation of God's nature?

The Qur'an says He is the Word and the Bible says that the Word, which became flesh and dwelt among us, is God. Jesus claimed to be God when He said, "I and the Father are one."

source: http://www.leaderu.com/isr/articles_resources/jesusinislam.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Had you taken the time to look, you would have found that in two hundred sixteen years there have been a total of eleven different "religions" represented by fifty-one different permanent Chaplains.
No, those are not "religions" per se, they are Congregational Demoninations of the same base religion. {ie, Christianity}
In actuality, they are separately organized groups, or splinter groups who have divorced themselves from antecedant group(s), declared themselves to be independent. All seek their due individual recognition.

In the US, newly organized religions spring up at the rate of several hundred each week. The fact that many of them choose to include the word "Christian", or a variation thereof, in their names is no more significant than the choice of a newly organized business to include the word, "Corporation", or a variation thereof, in their names
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Certainly a much broader scope than you assumed.
Only beause you like your Name, doesnt' mean the rest of us do.
If there's a pun in there, it's too subtle for me
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Wow. Now what does this do to the argument as to whether the US was founded upon Christian principles?
Not a damned thing, but you were the one to bring it up, so someone had to call you on it.
Getting testy, aren't you
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
And what about that old bugaboo, "Separation of Church and State"?I have no idea why the roster of Guest Chaplains is shown for only four years. Were there no guest chaplains prior to that?
Is that really a question directed at me? How about you do your own leg work for a change in stead of making wild claims and not showing anything to back them up. While I rebutted your false claim and all you can do is whine that someone actually bothered to face you over it?
Get over yourself, you're just not that slick.
Just a bit of musing on my part. I seem to have touched a nerve, haven't I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
You failed to note the several women among the gueat chaplains.
What does that have to do with the question of religion?

Nothing.

It's just another one of your lousey attempts to deflect attention from your flagrant ignorance of facts while opting for your opinionated claims with nothing to back them up.
Take a pill, chill out, or do whatever it is that you do to relax before you have an attack of some sort. It's not good to become excited.

Do I detect that you are reaching the point at which civil responses are no longer possible? That usually signals the point at which one's argument has run out of steam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Sometimes, a broad brush is required to do the job correctly.

Those who make the deliberate choice to take offense will, as always they are, be offended. On the other hand, those with broader vision will either agree or, if they disagree, will do so with the degree of civility which is the hallmark of reasonable persons.
Hmmm...I suggest you take your own advise there, dear.
Dear? Are we getting cozy?

I'm surprised that you haven't noticed. I never take offense and make an effort to conduct myself in as civil a manner as I can, regardless of the provocation.
 

ghost

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would it be safe to say that most of our founding fathers were christian men and wimen who founded this nation? They are the ones who "In God we trust" on our money. Should we not show them respect for what they did? Most states were all founded by religious people. Take Pennsylvannia for instence, founded by quakers. Does that mean all people there are religious no, but it does mean they are proud of there heritige. And it also means they show respect to the people who made that state what it is today.

If America would show just alittle more respect to the religious heritige of our country we might be just alittle better off. To actually say that 'God' should not be put in anything in our country is quite far fetched. You see 'God' is not a single God, God can represent so many God's. Not just the judeo christian god. Wouldnt you say?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ghost said:
Would it be safe to say that most of our founding fathers were christian men and wimen who founded this nation? They are the ones who "In God we trust" on our money.
Actually, that didn't show up until religious sentiment sparked in this nation during the Civil War and "In God We Trust" didn't show up on coinage until 1864 (and paper in 1957).
 

ghost

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes but wouldnt you still consider them our founding fathers? I mean we cant go all the way to the beggining to see how our nation ended up. When you look at a paintingwould you like tolook at the blank canves or the picture being drawn by the artist.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
JustineCredible said:
I did not "forget" the Muslims, they see Jesus as a prophet, not their lord and savior. Try again.
Believe as you wish. However, these words do not describe a prophet.

Perfect and Holy

The Qur'an claims that Jesus of Nazareth knew no sin, that He was perfect and holy, whereas all other men are imperfect. Gabriel told Mary that her Son would be "without fault." The Bible confirms this truth and further relates that though Jesus was tempted in all things just as we are, He never sinned.

According to surah Ya-Sin and Mary of the Qur'an, Jesus is the only One who can advise God concerning the fate of each individual on the day of judgment. The bible, too acknowledges that "He, (God) gave Him (Jesus) authority to execute judgment". and that "...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

In the Qur'an, Jesus is seen as a direct revelation of God. Although no one has actually seen God, Jesus declared Him for, as the Bible tells us, "He is the radiance of His (God's) glory and the exact representation of His nature..." The apostle John said that Christ came to help us understand and find the true God.

Now who is this man who Qur'anic and biblical evidence reveal to be the only One ever born of a virgin, who never yielded to temptation, whose judgment of mankind is respected even by God and who is, in fact, an exact representation of God's nature?

The Qur'an says He is the Word and the Bible says that the Word, which became flesh and dwelt among us, is God. Jesus claimed to be God when He said, "I and the Father are one."


source: http://www.leaderu.com/isr/articles...susinislam.html
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea said:
Believe as you wish. However, these words do not describe a prophet.

Perfect and Holy

The Qur'an claims that Jesus of Nazareth knew no sin, that He was perfect and holy, whereas all other men are imperfect. Gabriel told Mary that her Son would be "without fault." The Bible confirms this truth and further relates that though Jesus was tempted in all things just as we are, He never sinned.

According to surah Ya-Sin and Mary of the Qur'an, Jesus is the only One who can advise God concerning the fate of each individual on the day of judgment. The bible, too acknowledges that "He, (God) gave Him (Jesus) authority to execute judgment". and that "...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

In the Qur'an, Jesus is seen as a direct revelation of God. Although no one has actually seen God, Jesus declared Him for, as the Bible tells us, "He is the radiance of His (God's) glory and the exact representation of His nature..." The apostle John said that Christ came to help us understand and find the true God.

Now who is this man who Qur'anic and biblical evidence reveal to be the only One ever born of a virgin, who never yielded to temptation, whose judgment of mankind is respected even by God and who is, in fact, an exact representation of God's nature?

The Qur'an says He is the Word and the Bible says that the Word, which became flesh and dwelt among us, is God. Jesus claimed to be God when He said, "I and the Father are one."


source: http://www.leaderu.com/isr/articles...susinislam.html

Have you actually studied the Qur'an? Are you completely sure of your answer?

If your answer to either question is "yes." There is absolutely no need for further discussion.
I know what I know, you claim what you claim.

I agree only that we do indeed disagree.
 
L

lamaror

Hi,

I am replying to this thread only to give some information. I don't know what our founders thought, but they did leave much written information. These people were immigrants from Europe. Many of them, like the puritans and the quakers were fleeing religous persecution. Christianity before the founding of our nation, mainly the Church of England and few other christian sects. We they Christians? Most of them were of the Christian Tradition. you are of course aware that most of our best known founding fathers were Masons. All of our first 6 presidents were member of the Masonic Lodge. Have you ever wondered about the origins of the Pyramid on our paper money. Masonic.
one person responded to my original thread by citing the words in God We Trust as proof that our founding father were Christians. I am a christian, and accept and know that Christ is my savior. Yet that doesn't mean that I am going create a whole new make believe history of the United States to prove it. The first Coin to have In God We Trust on it was a half Penny in the year 1864. In God We Trust was on some coins from then on, but not on all. [/B]

In God We Trust was first placed on our paper money in 1957. That was the year I graduated from High School. I remember the event from my lost youth. In God We Trust on our money had nothing at to do with our founding fathers, or anything they intended or not intended for our Nation.

I received my first degree in American History. I just don't understand this need by people who claim to be Christians to rewrite History and come up with a make believe history. Our real History is amazing wonderful and complex.
Our founding fathers went out of their to create a nation that allowed any kind of religion people wanted or did not want. ;)
 
Last edited:
L

lamaror

I never claimed that I studied the Koran, I did read it from cover to cover and have looked things up in it,, using it as reference since then. I was in college taking classes in World Religion when I read it. :lol:
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
ghost said:
Yes but wouldnt you still consider them our founding fathers? I mean we cant go all the way to the beggining to see how our nation ended up. When you look at a paintingwould you like tolook at the blank canves or the picture being drawn by the artist.
As long as we're looking at stuff written on the money, let us consider "Novus Ordo Seclorum" from the Great Seal of the United States shown on the $1 bill. I read that as New Secular Order. How about you? :2wave:
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
As long as we're looking at stuff written on the money, let us consider "Novus Ordo Seclorum" from the Great Seal of the United States shown on the $1 bill. I read that as New Secular Order. How about you? :2wave:

Actually Novus Ordo Seclorum means:
The phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum (Latin for "New Order of the Ages") was originally a motto of freemasonry. It appears on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, first publicly revealed in 1782 and printed on the back of the American dollar bill since 1935. It is also the motto of the Yale School of Management, Yale University's business school. It is often thought, incorrectly, to mean "New World Order"; however, the exact Latin translation for that phrase is "Novus Ordo Mundi."

Novus Ordo Seclorum / Wikipedia
 

Reverend Ed

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
lamaror said:
Hi,

I am replying to this thread only to give some information. I don't know what our founders thought, but they did leave much written information. These people were immigrants from Europe. Many of them, like the puritans and the quakers were fleeing religous persecution. Christianity before the founding of our nation, mainly the Church of England and few other christian sects. We they Christians? Most of them were of the Christian Tradition. you are of course aware that most of our best known founding fathers were Masons. All of our first 6 presidents were member of the Masonic Lodge. Have you ever wondered about the origins of the Pyramid on our paper money. Masonic.
one person responded to my original thread by citing the words in God We Trust as proof that our founding father were Christians. I am a christian, and accept and know that Christ is my savior. Yet that doesn't mean that I am going create a whole new make believe history of the United States to prove it. The first Coin to have In God We Trust on it was a half Penny in the year 1864. In God We Trust was on some coins from then on, but not on all. [/B]

In God We Trust was first placed on our paper money in 1957. That was the year I graduated from High School. I remember the event from my lost youth. In God We Trust on our money had nothing at to do with our founding fathers, or anything they intended or not intended for our Nation.

I received my first degree in American History. I just don't understand this need by people who claim to be Christians to rewrite History and come up with a make believe history. Our real History is amazing wonderful and complex.
Our founding fathers went out of their to create a nation that allowed any kind of religion people wanted or did not want. ;)



Read Ezekiel 17 and then look at the Great Seal. There are three nations written about in Ezekiel 17, and there are three nations represented on the one dollar bill. When you understand what the eagle on the Great Seal represents and the symbol the stars over it form, you understand America. Once you understand what America is in Biblical prophecy, a lot of things might suddenly 'fall into place'. You see, Americans are taught two fallacies; one, they are a Christian nation and two, they are not mentioned in prophecy. Both statements are incorrect and are meant to mislead Christians.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Reverend Ed said:
Read Ezekiel 17 and then look at the Great Seal. There are three nations written about in Ezekiel 17, and there are three nations represented on the one dollar bill. When you understand what the eagle on the Great Seal represents and the symbol the stars over it form, you understand America. Once you understand what America is in Biblical prophecy, a lot of things might suddenly 'fall into place'. You see, Americans are taught two fallacies; one, they are a Christian nation and two, they are not mentioned in prophecy. Both statements are incorrect and are meant to mislead Christians.

"biblical prophecy" = fortune telling

Leviticus:
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
shuamort said:
She turned me into a newt.

I got better....

:2funny: :2funny: Well played!!!


Knights of Camelot: [singing] We're knights of the Round Table, we dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We're knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we're given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We're opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we're tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It's a busy life in Camelot
[solo]
Knights of Camelot: I have to push the pram a lot.
 
Top Bottom