Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

[freedom69714]

The truth is our founding fathers most likely did believe in religion/ god and Mosley Christian however we do have the separation of church and state too.
If you want to pray you can go to church .....Not school and not in our government offices ........We should not / must not show a preference to one religion or another this is the only true way to have separtion of church and state........You can pray at home .....you can pray outside ........

Lets keep it that way

Live and let live
freedom69

 

[ShamMol]

Perhaps I wasn’t sufficiently clear. Considering the possibly thousands of entities with the power to make laws, including judges who legislate from the bench, the challenge must be limited to the federal level.

Nevertheless, the state report regarding the 39 Oregonians who in 2003 opted to hasten their demise consists mainly of elderly persons whose stated reasons equate to depression or fear of being a burden to others. Only 9 cited inability to effectively manage pain. Counseling suicide to persons in a distressed state of mind, who are highly susceptible to suggestion, while horrid, appears to be effective, too. Clearly, this legislation is a stepping stone to euthanasia.

The death penalty does not contravene the Commandments. The fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not murder.” makes allowances for many instances in which a life may be justifiably taken; one of them being capital punishment. You may recall that Moses is the channel through which the Commandments were passed. A basic tenet of Hebrew law is, “An eye for an eye …”

One must understand that within the limited number of words in a single Commandment, lies a framework much the same as is found in a single amendment to the US Constitution.

In the matter of education, the fourth Commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother”, is familial in nature and encompasses, as well, the duty of parents to care for their children which includes educating, or preparing, them for adult life. As has been the case, for reasons of efficiency and broader scope, parents, through their elected representatives, have delegated this responsibility to others who are professional educators and collectively pay for these services through the tax system.

ok, let me be clear. Education is provided by the state nowadays (well, the vast majority learn from the state), or private schools. Home school is a thing of the past that not many people do these days. So, there go honor thy mother and father...

Hebrew Scripture in regards to eye for an eye was thrown out by jesus (and I know this not even being christian) by his statement "turn the other cheek." that entire theory of "eye for an eye" is considered barbic by the Catholic Church in fact becasue they correctly interpret the scripture.

Onto the "legislating form the bench" statement you made. They cannot make laws on the bench. They however, can throw out laws and declare them unconstitutional. Now, undoubtedly, you will bring up gay marriage and I would too in your situation. However, in Massachusetts, the court only made the point that as relating to the current constitution, people do have the right to marry whoever they want. now, you are thinking, but marriage only was between a man and a woman back then. CORRECT! but, they didn't expressely write that and the court even said something to the effect of "we don't want this to happen, but unfortunately the constitution, as written mandates it." in fact, they even gave the state time for implementation so they could write an ammendement and get it passed.

so....response please?

 

[26 X World Champs]

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it" John Adams

"Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies" – Thomas Jefferson

Special thanks to our friend Mixed Media for her contribution of some of these fine historical quotes. This pretty much answers the question of the thread. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AS A SECULAR NATION...PERIOD!

GREAT POST! You laid it all out beautifully. :applaud

 

[Rhadamanthus]

ok, let me be clear. Education is provided by the state nowadays (well, the vast majority learn from the state), or private schools. Home school is a thing of the past that not many people do these days. So, there go honor thy mother and father...


so....response please?

Actualy I think that you may not be entirely correct on that. Homeschooling is something that is very differant in each state. In some states the are a small amount of homeschoolers because they have exeptional schools. In other states homeschooling is so down trodden that few people care to educate their children that way. But in my home state of Alaska a huge amount of the population (which is not so big) homeschool.

 

[Fantasea]

ok, let me be clear.

Yes, that would be nice.

Education is provided by the state nowadays (well, the vast majority learn from the state), or private schools.

The obligation of parents to see to it that their children are educated may take many forms. The parents may home school, hire a tutor, pay tuition to a private school, or see to it that the child attends a public school financed with the taxes paid by the parent. If the parent chooses the public school route, the parent has an obligation to ensure that the child is an attentive student and performs up to the level of his ability. This is where many parents fail their obligation to their children.

Home school is a thing of the past that not many people do these days.

It would behoove you to do a google search on the two words -- home schooling.

So, there go honor thy mother and father...

So, you are mistaken.

Hebrew Scripture in regards to eye for an eye was thrown out by jesus (and I know this not even being christian) by his statement "turn the other cheek." that entire theory of "eye for an eye" is considered barbic by the Catholic Church in fact becasue they correctly interpret the scripture.

Irrespective of what you say, 'an eye for an eye' is, as I wrote, a tenet of Hebraic law.

Onto the "legislating form the bench" statement you made. They cannot make laws on the bench. They however, can throw out laws and declare them unconstitutional.

Activist judges can also manage to find, lurking within laws and amendments, rights or prohibitions never intended by the legislators. All they need is for the ACLU to point out where these have lain undiscovered for up to two centuries.

Now, undoubtedly, you will bring up gay marriage and I would too in your situation.

I hadn't intended to resurrect this question, but since you think I should, I will.

However, in Massachusetts, the court only made the point that as relating to the current constitution, people do have the right to marry whoever they want. now, you are thinking, but marriage only was between a man and a woman back then. CORRECT! but, they didn't expressely write that and the court even said something to the effect of "we don't want this to happen, but unfortunately the constitution, as written mandates it." in fact, they even gave the state time for implementation so they could write an ammendement and get it passed.

No matter how carefully legislators try to craft bills, there will always be persons seeking to push an agenda who will burn the midnight oil until they find a loophole to exploit. The same-sex marriage advocates, no doubt, had carefully analized the laws of all fifty states and settled on Massachusetts as the best place to start.

In retrospect, they succeeded in stirring up a hornets nest. The reaction in eleven states where same-sex marriage initiatives appeared on the November ballot showed overwhelming opposition as they all went down in flames. Have you noticed that the Democratic politicians who had been quite vocal on the subject have become mute? I wonder why.

so....response please?

so....there you have it.

 

[Imperiosus]

Our Founding Fathers did believe in a society supported by religion. Cant seem to think of a one that was not religious in some degree. I dont think that is was intended to be a CHRISTIAN nation, however, I do believe that they did not intend it to be a GODLESS nation run by athiests that whine as soon as they see one nation under God.

 

[Contrarian]

First off, Welcome Imperiosus. Now let me correct you. This country was founded and continues to be a secular nation which means that we do not, or at least should not, hold any religion as an element of our government. The reason for this is to prevent the intrusion of any one religion upon the freedoms of any single citizen. The founding fathers realized unanimously, that religion had no place in the government of a pluralistic society. The best way to make someone understand this is to give you the words of some of the founding fathers directly:

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 420

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion” – John Adams – The Treaty of Tripoli

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the Common Law”- Thomas Jefferson

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no gods."--- Both of those are quotes from personal writings of Thomas Jefferson.

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one." - Thomas Jefferson

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protections of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindi and Infidel of every denomination."--Thomas Jefferson, from his autobiography, 1821

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind." -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it" John Adams

"Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies" – Thomas Jefferson

Haven't you heard the fundamental pillar of our society which mandates separation of church and state? So with all due respect this country was not founded to be either a "Godless nation" or a nation under God... please note that God is not mentioned once in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. It was founded as a country for ALL the people, each with equal rights. Please note that the words "one nation, under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance after pressure from the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic group) in 1956.

When proponents of injection of "God" into the national consciousness speak of this entity are they speaking of the God of Abraham? Jehovah? Buddha? Allah? Mithras? Zeus? Odin? Thor?... we all know that the implication is the Judeo Christian version of the story, which implies "theocracy", which is offensive to all those who do not believe that version of the story and has no place in the common government. If anything, you should thank one of those "whining" atheists for preventing the intrusion of one persons beliefs into another's, in a society that guarantees the freedoms of everyone.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson

Thanks, Contrarian, for the quotes. I especially like the one above. That's a lot of nails in the "Christian Nation" theory and you'd think that would pretty well end the matter. It won't, of course :applaud

 

[anomaly]

Thanks, Contrarian, for the quotes. I especially like the one above. That's a lot of nails in the "Christian Nation" theory and you'd think that would pretty well end the matter. It won't, of course :applaud

It does, at least, refute one common 'Christian nation" argument-that the founders were themselves all Christians. The founders, as anyone can tell from these quotes, had quite an open mind when it came to religion. As we inherit this country, we should keep this open mind, and not pass any law based on 'Christian' morals alone.

 

[Contrarian]

I appreciate the recognition, but the quotes are a collaboration with our friend MixedMedia. I too agree, that this will not bring an end to this discussion because you cannot make the blind see.

Programming of myth as fact is epidemic. I have found that too many have drunk the Kool Aid :drink

 

[26 X World Champs]

It does, at least, refute one common 'Christian nation" argument-that the founders were themselves all Christians. The founders, as anyone can tell from these quotes, had quite an open mind when it came to religion. As we inherit this country, we should keep this open mind, and not pass any law based on 'Christian' morals alone.

The entire concept of a "Christian Nation" is ANTI-AMERICAN. How can anyone disagree with this fact? That belief would immediately make non-Christians less, and that is, by any interpretation, ANTI-AMERICAN where all people are equal.

One cannot be less than and still be equal, right?

My question is why anyone is so insecure in their religious beliefs that they feel that everyone has to agree with them? What are they afraid of? That's what I do not understand.

For some reason, the ultra-religious seem to use FEAR as their main tool to get others to obey them. "Do this or you'll go to hell." "We'll fail as a nation due to immorality."

Fear is a powerful weapon, but remember what FDR said:

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself."

To that, I say "AMEN!"

 

[Fantasea]

please note that God is not mentioned once in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Really?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

​

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Contrarian]

I stand corrected with respect to the Declaration (it's been quite a few years since I last read it, now I must do so to avoid future mis-speaks)... however it seems that the reference to a diety is up to the individual interpretation...

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" - might they be Druids? or possible Pantheists? perhaps the first Greenpeace members?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - my "Creator" was my Mother with an assist from my Father... perhaps they were speaking of their parents as well? If not, it isn't an ironclad case for Jesus & Co.. one might insert Allah, Buddha, Odin, Mitras... take your pick. Certainly not the omnipotent Christian God exclusively.

Thank you for bringing the error to my attention.

 

[anomaly]

Really?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

​

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

OK let's put it this way...the Christian God is not mentioned once in either document, therefore the passing of laws that are obviously Christian in nature (with no respect to the minority view) should not be permitted. Abortion and gay marriage laws proposed conservatives are these such laws. A constitutional amendment against either is what I'm against, as it completely takes away freedoms for gays and women, nationwide. If a state wants to make a law concerning such moral issues, I haven't any problem with it, as some states will inevitably keep gay marriage and abortion legal.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Really?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

​

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

1. The Declaration of Independence has no basis on US Law nor can it be cited as a reason to uphold a law by the Supremes. It's a wonderful, fantastic press release that captures the heart and soul of the USA. It is not a legal document. The Constitution is the basis of our laws, and is what the Supremes use as their map of legal or illegal.

2. The one word reference to "GOD" does not mean that Christian prayer (or any religion) has free reign to be taught, displayed, or in any way forced upon the public in any public place, period. Christians use that one word as if it is a Carte Blanche to push their prejudiced views upon everyone. Prejudice I say? Yes, prejudiced because the Christians who want to impose their God upon the Non-Christians believe that they are right, that Non-Christians are wrong (sinners) and that in the end the Non-Christians are beneath the Christians. Sickening, don't you think?

3. It's 2005, how about everyone simply go about their own personal business and belief without ramrodding their religious beliefs on anyone else? Why is that so hard for the "religion in public" crowd? Too insecure to have a personal relationship with your deity? Do the "religion in public" crowd need to be reminded in public about God in order to feel religious?

 

[Fantasea]

1. The Declaration of Independence has no basis on US Law nor can it be cited as a reason to uphold a law by the Supremes. It's a wonderful, fantastic press release that captures the heart and soul of the USA. It is not a legal document. The Constitution is the basis of our laws, and is what the Supremes use as their map of legal or illegal.

2. The one word reference to "GOD" does not mean that Christian prayer (or any religion) has free reign to be taught, displayed, or in any way forced upon the public in any public place, period. Christians use that one word as if it is a Carte Blanche to push their prejudiced views upon everyone. Prejudice I say? Yes, prejudiced because the Christians who want to impose their God upon the Non-Christians believe that they are right, that Non-Christians are wrong (sinners) and that in the end the Non-Christians are beneath the Christians. Sickening, don't you think?

3. It's 2005, how about everyone simply go about their own personal business and belief without ramrodding their religious beliefs on anyone else? Why is that so hard for the "religion in public" crowd? Too insecure to have a personal relationship with your deity? Do the "religion in public" crowd need to be reminded in public about God in order to feel religious?

I just heard Joe Lieberman (D) CT saying on "Meet the Press", there is a quote attributed to Lincoln that goes, "We should not be trying hard to get God to be on our side, we should be trying hard to be on God's side."

For a few words by George Washington, look here: http://www.night.net/thanksgiving/kwash-11.html

It might be well to remember that all who worship one God, regardless of they name by which He is called, are worshiping the same Deity.

It might also be well to remember that Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

It might also be well to remember that what is termed 'Christianity' is as a tree with many branches. The reason for all of the branches is that over the years, there have been those who, in disagreement with the Church in Rome, over many things, including those fallacies you mention in your first paragraph, have decided to go their own way while proclaiming themselves the one true church.

Because each of these groups is relatively small by comparison, it gets more press to sling mud at the 'big' name, doesn't it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I just heard Joe Lieberman (D) CT saying on "Meet the Press", there is a quote attributed to Lincoln that goes, "We should not be trying hard to get God to be on our side, we should be trying hard to be on God's side."

That's a fine statement for him to make, and for him to believe. No problem. The problem is making people who do not believe in any God have to put up with the expression of religion in public places. Can't it be done in private adequately?

It might be well to remember that all who worship one God, regardless of they name by which He is called, are worshiping the same Deity.

It might also be well to remember that Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

Because each of these groups is relatively small by comparison, it gets more press to sling mud at the 'big' name, doesn't it?

It might also be well to remember that there are tens of millions of people who do not believe in God, and per the Constitution, they should not have to accept a God in their everyday public lives.

I don't really know of anyone who wants to prevent anyone from any religion from worshipping in peace. The only objection is when a religious person or religious group tries to make others worship with them on public property.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to practice their religion, any religion, not the majority religion. That is the foundation of this country, why the Pilgrims left England.

The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

It appears to me to be very black and white. Religion is cool, but not by the government.

It is prejudicial for anyone to suggest that America is supposed to be a "Christian" nation. We're not, at least in public we're not. In private? What difference does it make?
Clear to me, isn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

That's a fine statement for him to make, and for him to believe. No problem. The problem is making people who do not believe in any God have to put up with the expression of religion in public places. Can't it be done in private adequately?

It might also be well to remember that there are tens of millions of people who do not believe in God, and per the Constitution, they should not have to accept a God in their everyday public lives.

I don't really know of anyone who wants to prevent anyone from any religion from worshipping in peace. The only objection is when a religious person or religious group tries to make others worship with them on public property.

The Constitution gives everyone the right to practice their religion, any religion, not the majority religion. That is the foundation of this country, why the Pilgrims left England.



It appears to me to be very black and white. Religion is cool, but not by the government.

It is prejudicial for anyone to suggest that America is supposed to be a "Christian" nation. We're not, at least in public we're not. In private? What difference does it make?
Clear to me, isn't it?

That's what's so great. Everyone can do exactly as he chooses.

On the other hand, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. So long as Congress does not impose a state sponsored religion upon the populace, there is no problem with acknowledging that something called religion does exist.

Non-discriminatory use of religious organizations to further the aims of governmental social and educational programs is constitutional. So says the US Supreme Court.

 

[alienken]

I don't really know of anyone who wants to prevent anyone from any religion from worshipping in peace. The only objection is when a religious person or religious group tries to make others worship with them on public property.


It is prejudicial for anyone to suggest that America is supposed to be a "Christian" nation. We're not, at least in public we're not. In private? What difference does it make?
Clear to me, isn't it?

We don't force anybody to worship by saying the name of God. We call America a Christian nation because the majority of the religions are Christian and as you have heard, our founding fathers wrote our founding documents with Christian principles.

 

[26 X World Champs]

We don't force anybody to worship by saying the name of God. We call America a Christian nation because the majority of the religions are Christian and as you have heard, our founding fathers wrote our founding documents with Christian principles.

Who is "WE"? I don't call America a Christian nation, that is offensive to me. I call America "The home of the free." I don't want religion to be presented to me by my government, sorry.

I have complete respect for God, for religion, and for everyone's right to practice it in private. I do not have respect for people who want me to get on board with their religious beliefs and celebrate it with them on publicly owned property.

I think there are enough places to practice and celebrate religion that we do not need to use the halls of government as yet one more place. In no way am I saying that America is not driven by Judeo-Christian principles, but that is one component, not the only one, and a lot of that is good old common sense. I do not need to the 10 Commandments to tell me not to kill. I do not need the bible to tell me to honor my parents or help my neighbor.

Sometimes it seems that people believe that people who are not religious do not share their values, and that is just not true. Values are not based on religion, their based on principles. Do religious values and principles co-mingle? Of course they do, quite well.

 

[Fantasea]

I have complete respect for God, for religion, and for everyone's right to practice it in private. I do not have respect for people who want me to get on board with their religious beliefs and celebrate it with them on publicly owned property.

I don't believe that anyone is asking you or anyone else to "get on board and celebrate it with them on publicly owned property". What there is, is simply varied groups who seek to avail themselves of a share of public space for a limited time to celebrate or mark occasions which are meaningful to them. Whether one chooses to join in or ignore the whole thing is a matter of choice.

If, for whatever reason, one chooses not to participate, how is that person harmed?

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

We don't force anybody to worship by saying the name of God.

We don't? So what else is this business of intruding "under god" into the Pledge?

We call America a Christian nation because the majority of the religions are Christian...

Perhaps you mean majority of the religious Americans are... Christianity is merely one of many religions.

... and as you have heard, our founding fathers wrote our founding documents with Christian principles.

So indeed it has been said, often and glibly. Exactly what principles these are and how they apply to the operation of our government is always left unsaid, though. Can you enlighten me here? Inquiring minds want to know. :drink

 

[RightinNYC]

Perhaps you mean majority of the religious Americans are... Christianity is merely one of many religions.

Actually, a majority of America is Christian.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Actually, a majority of America is Christian.

Isn't that precisely what I said?

 

[Contrarian]

I just heard Joe Lieberman (D) CT saying on "Meet the Press", there is a quote attributed to Lincoln that goes, "We should not be trying hard to get God to be on our side, we should be trying hard to be on God's side."

First off, Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew who refuses to work on Saturdays and won't eat off plates and utensils that haven't been certifed Kosher... hardly an objective participant in these discussions.

Secondly, I have not been able to tie the quote he attributes to Lincoln, to Honest Abe... perhaps someone could do that? Most of the references I have found from Lincoln, show almost a complete disinterest in the subject except when he needed to make political speechs to stir the masses. This was seen even then as a powerful way of gaining support from the masses and a lesson learned well by W. How can you lose when God is your VP? Those unable to put any form of reasoned thought into their decisions, blindly follow this type of claim because they actually believe these politicians carry the mandate of God... There's a long history of this... Roman Emperors, Pharoahs both who actually became recognized as gods... hummm wonder where the idea of making a mortal man into a god came from? Until the Roman's got ahold of Jesus under Constantine, he was simply a well respected Prophet... to improve the political situation in Rome, they voted him in as a diety (only won by a slim margin too!)... isn't politics great?

“The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long and complicated statements of Christian dogma.” – Abraham Lincoln