Islam at it's core would want to over throw the Constitution

[aociswundumho]

No red-blooded wants to live in an evangelical Christian state.

Denmark is a Christian state. Don't you guys luv Denmark?

 

[The Baron]

My question to you was not a straw man but rather my attempt to understand wtf you were saying.

Now you know.

You're saying that you want the moral basis of state action to be rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. Which version of Christianity?

Biblically based Protestantism just like our Founding Fathers.

I don't agree that legal positivism is necessarily leftist, but that's a much broader discussion. Certainly, natural law and natural rights have "liberal" applications.

They do?

So you're saying that we should all be Christian and that we should elect only Christian leaders.

I do believe it preferable, yes.

How is this not a thinly veiled form of theocracy,

We have a Constitution as the foundation of our Republic. Not a Bible.

if a theocracy is a system of government which recognizes a divinity as the supreme ruling authority?

Many of our Founders recognized God "as the supreme ruling authority" and they did not give us a theocracy.

Our Constitution recognizes The People as the supreme ruling authority.

Now that's true.

The two are not compatible, and it is clear which one you favor.

And this is false.

Our Founders deliberately steered away from your choice because Christian sectarianism had engendered so much war and strife in Europe's recent history.

Not at all true...

John Jay (1745-1829, Founding Father, Signed Treaty of Paris, First Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court, 1795-1801)
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
- The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.

There is no empirical, history-based, fact-based reason to conclude that a country whose government cohered around Christianity (or most religions) as a governing principle would be peaceful or well-governed.

See here.

This goes back to my question to you at the top: which version of Christianity? The Abrahamic religions tend towards intolerance of ideological impurity,

What?

and with the exception of Judaism, are overtly proselytizing.

They are? According to who?

It appears that I was right after all.

Now that it absolutely laughable.

You do seem to want to live in a theocracy and a religiously monochrome state, and you would like to see this country governed theocratically.

Baseless.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Now you know.

Biblically based Protestantism just like our Founding Fathers.

They do?

I do believe it preferable, yes.

We have a Constitution as the foundation of our Republic. Not a Bible.

Many of our Founders recognized God "as the supreme ruling authority" and they did not give us a theocracy.

Now that's true.

And this is false.

Not at all true...

John Jay (1745-1829, Founding Father, Signed Treaty of Paris, First Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court, 1795-1801)
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
- The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.

See here.

What?

They are? According to who?

Now that it absolutely laughable.

Baseless.

Quite a few of our founders were diests not christians.

 

[Peter King]

Islam must follow the United States Laws.

one word, freedom of religion. Pure and simple. I may not be religious, but I support the right of everybody to be religious or not religious as a right.

 

[The Baron]

Any religion at its core, and given enough power, would pose a threat to the Constitution. It's not just Islam. The Constitution is not a Christian document,..

Yea, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[The Baron]

Quite a few of our founders were diests not christians.

Not at all true.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Not at all true.

Absolute fact

 

[The Baron]

Absolute fact

Did you miss my link?

 

[ataraxia]

Yea, you couldn't be more wrong.

Your quotes are public pronouncements, by politicians, for the masses. My quotes are what they wrote in their private letters and political writings, which they didn’t think the masses would read.

They are obviously different. Why? Which do you think may be a more reliable indicator of what they really thought?

 

[The Baron]

Your quotes are public pronouncements, by politicians, for the masses. My quotes are what they wrote in their private letters and political writings, which they didn’t think the masses would read.

Arguably the dumbest reasoning I've ever encountered on this site...and think about the territory that covers!

They are obviously different. Why? Which do you think may be a more reliable indicator of what they really thought?

I've provided numerous quotes along with sources. Thomas Paine was a deist which explains his views. And John Adams did not write the quote you provided.

You need to do some homework...a lot of it.

 

[DataPoint]

Denmark is a Christian state. Don't you guys luv Denmark?

It is a secular state, as you well know.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Arguably the dumbest reasoning I've ever encountered on this site...and think about the territory that covers!

I've provided numerous quotes along with sources. Thomas Paine was a deist which explains his views. And John Adams did not write the quote you provided.

You need to do some homework...a lot of it.

Are you always so arrogant?

It's not a good look even if you were correct, which clearly you arent.

 

[The Baron]

Are you always so arrogant?

It's not a good look even if you were correct, which clearly you arent.

Clearly I am which is why I can be so arrogant.

 

[DataPoint]

Our FF had a couple of deists, one who believed in a poly assembly of gods, at least one atheist, and a group of supposed Christians from weak ones like Madison and Washington to neo-evangelicals like Jay or rabid Anglicans like Henry.

The USA is governmentally a secular state: end of story.

Baron's assumptions are so off track on this issue that they are laughable.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Clearly I am which is why I can be so arrogant.

Lol.

That is what they always think.

I wish you could see it in a mirror.

 

[The Baron]

Our FF had a couple of deists, one who believed in a poly assembly of gods, at least one atheist, and a group of supposed Christians from weak ones like Madison and Washington to neo-evangelicals like Jay or rabid Anglicans like Henry.

See here.

The USA is governmentally a secular state: end of story.

Nobody has argued that. My points had to do with our founding.

Baron's assumptions are so off track on this issue that they are laughable.

Assumptions?

 

[DataPoint]

See here.

Nobody has argued that. My points had to do with our founding.

Assumptions?

Six snapshots isolated and not in context are your proofs?

No one has said we are not culturally a nation of Christians generally. We were and for a long time a nation of Christians with a secular government.

 

[SheWolf]

Islam must follow the United States Laws.

How can you prove the title of your thread?

 

[ataraxia]

Yea, you couldn't be more wrong.

Obviously, there are very contradictory quotes from the founding fathers on this issue. So what did they really think?

It may help to point out that my quotes are mostly personal letters and political writings which they didn't think the public would see very much. The others are public statements for the masses. They were, after all, politicians, and had to appease them.

So how can we try to sort through this?

Here is an interesting letter from Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Paine, on receiving a manuscript of a book Paine wanted to publish, in which he attacks religion. It is interesting to see what was going through Franklin's head, and why there were such seeming contradictions in what they said publicly to the masses, vs. what they said privately to each other:

_____________________
Dear Sir,

I have read your Manuscript with some Attention. By the Arguments it contains against the Doctrine of a particular Providence, tho’ you allow a general Providence, you strike at the Foundation of all Religion: For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection.

I will not enter into any Discussion of your Principles, tho’ you seem to desire it; At present I shall only give you my Opinion that tho’ your Reasonings are subtle, and may prevail with some Readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general Sentiments of Mankind on that Subject, and the Consequence of printing this Piece will be a great deal of Odium drawn upon your self, Mischief to you and no Benefit to others. He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any Good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous Life without the Assistance afforded by Religion; you having a clear Perception of the Advantages of Virtue and the Disadvantages of Vice, and possessing a Strength of Resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common Temptations. But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent Talents of reasoning on a less hazardous Subject, and thereby obtain Rank with our most distinguish’d Authors. For among us, it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots that a Youth to be receiv’d into the Company of Men, should prove his Manhood by beating his Mother.6

I would advise you therefore not to attempt unchaining the Tyger, but to burn this Piece before it is seen by any other Person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of Mortification from the Enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of Regret and Repentance.7 If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it? I intend this Letter itself as a Proof of my Friendship and therefore add no Professions of it, but subscribe simply Yours

B.F.
_______________________________

It seems they wanted religion out of politics because of its horrible track record, but were worried about how individual morality would fare if they began to attack it on the individual level. These were, after all, largely uneducated, imprudent, and injudicious people.

So the compromise they reached was take religion out of the public sphere and politics, but leave people to worship and follow their religion as they saw fit. If it takes a God for people to get people to not be drunks and kill each other, well, that would help the state run more smoothly. But clearly, they were not true believers themselves.

 

[DataPoint]

ataraxia owns the arguments mad by The Baron: no contest. The Baron is now a baronet.

 

[ataraxia]

Arguably the dumbest reasoning I've ever encountered on this site...and think about the territory that covers!

I've provided numerous quotes along with sources. Thomas Paine was a deist which explains his views. And John Adams did not write the quote you provided.

You need to do some homework...a lot of it.

I have quotes from the framers of our Constitution. James Madison was probably the main author.

And how do you know John Adams did not write the quote (and which one? I provided several from him).

 

[DataPoint]

ataraxia, you should be Duchess ataraxia in terms of argumentation.

 

[The Baron]

Six snapshots isolated and not in context are your proofs?

Not in context? What are you talking about.

No one has said we are not culturally a nation of Christians generally.

I don't know if that is the case anymore.

We were and for a long time a nation of Christians with a secular government.

I agree. No argument here.

 

[Peter King]

Denmark is a Christian state. Don't you guys luv Denmark?

Not sure if I love Denmark, I would not want to live there. Any state that has a minister of Ecclesiastical affairs is not a state where I would want to live. I love countries where there is a separation between church and state.

Ecclesiastical Affairs​

 

[DataPoint]

The Baron, apparently, does not know there are hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes about the Founders' beliefs over many decades.

We may no longer be a nation of Christians.

And you are with me about America being a secular government.

So, The Baron, you are quibbling and squibbling. It's annoying to the better educated and more knowledgeable. Please don't.