• 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!

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

LostInSeattle said:
My question to you was not a straw man but rather my attempt to understand wtf you were saying.
Click to expand...
Now you know.
LostInSeattle said:
You're saying that you want the moral basis of state action to be rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. Which version of Christianity?
Click to expand...
Biblically based Protestantism just like our Founding Fathers.
LostInSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...
They do?
LostInSeattle said:
So you're saying that we should all be Christian and that we should elect only Christian leaders.
Click to expand...
I do believe it preferable, yes.
LostInSeattle said:
How is this not a thinly veiled form of theocracy,
Click to expand...
We have a Constitution as the foundation of our Republic. Not a Bible.
LostInSeattle said:
if a theocracy is a system of government which recognizes a divinity as the supreme ruling authority?
Click to expand...
Many of our Founders recognized God "as the supreme ruling authority" and they did not give us a theocracy.
LostInSeattle said:
Our Constitution recognizes The People as the supreme ruling authority.
Click to expand...
Now that's true.
LostInSeattle said:
The two are not compatible, and it is clear which one you favor.
Click to expand...
And this is false.
LostInSeattle said:
Our Founders deliberately steered away from your choice because Christian sectarianism had engendered so much war and strife in Europe's recent history.
Click to expand...
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.
LostInSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...
See here.
LostInSeattle said:
This goes back to my question to you at the top: which version of Christianity? The Abrahamic religions tend towards intolerance of ideological impurity,
Click to expand...
What?
LostInSeattle said:
and with the exception of Judaism, are overtly proselytizing.
Click to expand...
They are? According to who?
LostInSeattle said:
It appears that I was right after all.
Click to expand...
Now that it absolutely laughable.
LostInSeattle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Baseless.
 
Quite a few of our founders were diests not christians.
 
The Baron said:
Yea, you couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ataraxia said:
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.
Click to expand...
Arguably the dumbest reasoning I've ever encountered on this site...and think about the territory that covers!
ataraxia said:
They are obviously different. Why? Which do you think may be a more reliable indicator of what they really thought?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
DataPoint said:
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.
Click to expand...
See here.
DataPoint said:
The USA is governmentally a secular state: end of story.
Click to expand...
Nobody has argued that. My points had to do with our founding.
DataPoint said:
Baron's assumptions are so off track on this issue that they are laughable.
Click to expand...
Assumptions?
 
The Baron said:
See here.

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

Assumptions?
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Baron said:
Yea, you couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

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

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).
 
ataraxia, you should be Duchess ataraxia in terms of argumentation.
 
aociswundumho said:
Denmark is a Christian state. Don't you guys luv Denmark?
Click to expand...
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​

 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…