- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Which doesn't change the fact that those words were approved by our founding fathers as a description of the country.
They were not approved by the Founding Fathers but rather the Senate. The clause is non-binding because there was no mutual ratification.
The senate in 1796-7 would have been comprised of founding fathers.
And the "binding" nature of the statement is irrelvent considering the fact that our government believed that was what was in the arabic document that was binding. They still OKed it. The only thing that has any intellectual value in this discussion is what our government believed was in the document.
The Tripolians don't define our nation, so what they believed is irrelvent.
What is your definition of Founding Fathers?
Still not legally binding on the United States or its government.
And I would argue that the Senate in 1796 was not composed of Founding Fathers... so there...
Here why don't we play with this little quote a little:
"You shall have no other gods before me."
Now tell me, if I tell you that you can't have any other Gods before me in a commandment, what choice am I giving you? No, no. I believe you're running circles trying to explain the progressive ideas at the time. 'God' didn't give really give humanity a choice. If he did then he's not all knowing. A choice would mean that he thought it could go both ways and thus planned in the event of either case. Do you not understand the fallacy in saying that you have a choice when everything you do is already predetermined to end in a precise way regardless of what you do? No, no. Freedom of religion is NOT a Christian idea. It isn't so in the 21st century much less the 16th or 17th century.
Here why don't we play with this little quote a little:
"You shall have no other gods before me."
Now tell me, if I tell you that you can't have any other Gods before me in a commandment, what choice am I giving you? No, no. I believe you're running circles trying to explain the progressive ideas at the time. 'God' didn't give really give humanity a choice. If he did then he's not all knowing. A choice would mean that he thought it could go both ways and thus planned in the event of either case. Do you not understand the fallacy in saying that you have a choice when everything you do is already predetermined to end in a precise way regardless of what you do? No, no. Freedom of religion is NOT a Christian idea. It isn't so in the 21st century much less the 16th or 17th century.
You're right. Freedom of religious is not a Christian idea. It is an American idea borne from the belief from this nation's Founding Fathers that no American citizen will ever be unjustly persecuted based on their religious belief nor forced to follow any one particular religion as what was thrust upon English citizens under the British crown.
When you get down to it, America may have been discovered under the religious banner of Christianity, but those lonely Pilgrims were Quakers. (Whatever happened to that religion in this country anyway? Did they morph into Amish or did it just go away?)
Because one of Obama's parents was Muslim and the other was Christian. Why aren't his detractors saying that he was born Christian? The answer is obvious. They want to pin him as a Muslim, in order to commit character assassination on him.
Nah, I think you have it wrong Dan. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a child born to a Muslim father isn't that child considered Muslim? Isn't that why he was registered as a Muslim in the Jakarta school? j-mac
That's quite correct, J-mac. Not every religious faith shares the same attitudes in this area as Christianity. Indeed, every Muslim father expects his children to be Muslim, which is why they have "honor killings" should the children dare stray.
This is why so many Muslims consider BHO to be a Muslim, especially considering his name and, if he was genuinely changed to Christianity, he would then be an apostate, and subject to the death penalty.
Fortunately for BHO, Muslims consider him to be a Muslim also, just commuting Al-taqiyya, so he is still part of the faith.
That's quite correct, J-mac. Not every religious faith shares the same attitudes in this area as Christianity. Indeed, every Muslim father expects his children to be Muslim, which is why they have "honor killings" should the children dare stray.
That's circular reasoning, which is a fallacy. You're assuming the proposition that Obama is a Muslim is true based on the premise that the step father is Muslim.Nah, I think you have it wrong Dan. Correct me if I am wrong, but if a child born to a Muslim father isn't that child considered Muslim? Isn't that why he was registered as a Muslim in the Jakarta school?
j-mac
You're right. Freedom of religious is not a Christian idea. It is an American idea borne from the belief from this nation's Founding Fathers that no American citizen will ever be unjustly persecuted based on their religious belief nor forced to follow any one particular religion as what was thrust upon English citizens under the British crown.
When you get down to it, America may have been discovered under the religious banner of Christianity, but those lonely Pilgrims were Quakers. (Whatever happened to that religion in this country anyway? Did they morph into Amish or did it just go away?)
There were several State sactioned churches at our Founding.
So?.........
Read it slower, maybe it won't go over you head................
Are you going to try to explain yourself or not?
I will to this extent, (it's late and I'm tired} there were in fact State sanctioned religions, which makes it a fallacy that there was ever any such thing as "separation of church and state" at our founding. Leave that aside..
Food for thought extrapolation.............
Look forward 20 years. Look at the defence of the religion of Islam from the left. Is it foreseeable that a State could be overtaken by demographics that once again it could be deemed constitutional for a State to sanction Islam as the official religion of the State? Look at the leftist SCOTUS nutjobs.
Look back 20, who would believe where we are now?
Food for thought.........
There were several State sactioned churches at our Founding.
I have to point out here that it is permitted for Muslims to lie if it furthers their goals, because in the end they can be redeemed by fbe simple act of becoming a martyr.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?