celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How are you wrong....let us count the ways:Secular belief is a Christian belief. Both the word Secular and the belief in secularity are products of Christianity. This is a historical fact. Neither atheists nor Muslims have produced such a belief, such a concept. Neither atheists nor Muslims in the cores of their beliefs have been capable of producing such a concept. For both atheists and Muslims domination of their beliefs in each and every aspect of human activities is the goal of their activity. They cannot even use a toilet seat without devoting their conquest of the seat to their religious beliefs.
2. Muslims have for centuries had separate secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The majority of Arab/Islamic nations have such separations: The Presidents of Egypt and Syria are not clerics, neither is King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, neither is King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein of Jordan.Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date:
14th century
1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>
Yes, society was very different then. People were packing up and leaving their homes and going to a far away land to escape government-sanctioned religion, much of which was Christianity.
The Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment just the way it is. I believe most of the misconception comes from modern conditioning. There are people who want the Establishment Clause to mean nothing so they slip out rhetoric to support that.
Also, people back then were well aware of other religions, including other beliefs right here in the new land. It could not have been so inconceivable to them that other religions needed freedom also.
As I know it, all the evidence points to a need for the Separation of Church and State and the Framers knew it. They escaped religious prosecution either themselves or saw it happening to others. Many may have been Christian, but that only strengthens the First Amendment. If these people were really so deeply Christian and yet they still wrote the First Amendment the way it is, without mention of Christianity, knowing full well that other religions existed right here with them, then they knew the value of all religious freedom, not just Christianity.
That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience;
and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other
I'm not basing this on my modern interpretation of what they intended, I'm basing this on literally hundreds of pages of original source material that I've read on this topic, from the debates involved in the drafting of the amendment to the contemporaneous laws passed in the states. Here's a great book that lays out all the details: Amazon.com: Separation of Church and State: Philip Hamburger: Books
And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, from the Virginia Constitution:
That's about as strong of a support for the "freedom of religion" as you can get, right? From reading this without the context, you'd obviously get the impression that they wanted to ensure that government did nothing to endorse any individual religion in any way.
Here's the rest of that sentence:
The point is that while the founders were obviously strong supporters of the idea of freedom of religion and opposed the establishment of a national religion, they didn't consider it an "establishment of religion" to take actions that favored particular religions, so long as they didn't cross a certain threshold.
If you had asked the founders if they actually intended to "separate" church and state in the sense that we use it today, the vast majority of them would not have even understood the question.
Even in our modern conception of the terms, there are plenty of ways in which the two are interrelated. While government cannot favor one religion over another, it can favor religion over non-religion.
Thats not the point here.You must be extremely intolerant of most Muslim nations then.
and which has at the very core of its law proscribed Christian government
Still waiting to see what makes it specifically "christian" as opposed to Jewish.
Simple demographics. The founding fathers subscribed to a variety of Christian denominations, and the majority of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, subscribe to a variety of Christian denominations.Still waiting to see what makes it specifically "christian" as opposed to Jewish.
Simple demographics. The founding fathers subscribed to a variety of Christian denominations, and the majority of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, subscribe to a variety of Christian denominations.
However, we do not have, and per the Constitution can never have, either a Christian, a Jewish, or a Muslim government. Per the Constitution, we can never have a government predicated on any single religion or its tenets of faith.
I am failing to see how this country was founded on spiritual freedom based on Christianity.
It seems more likely that it is based on religious neutrality given the First Amendment.
If it is true, that Christianity was the foundation, it would seem logical that that would have been part of the document that founded us.
I am also failing to see the connection to anything here related to cannibalism. Could you elaborate more on that?
So, if the people who happened to build my computer in the factory just happened to be christians, my computer is a CHRISTIAN computer?
Ah, yes. And you, a bigoted and unyielding hyperpartisan, are the arbiter of principles? Ha!Like you would know anything about it. Damn woman, you're not American and you want to change the country you're in. You're the last person around here to lecture us on a set of principles.
Depends....are you running Windows?So, if the people who happened to build my computer in the factory just happened to be christians, my computer is a CHRISTIAN computer?
Be so, not a big deal, the more I am an anti-Libertarian.I'm making an observation, not a strawman. Its a stated opinion based on the attitude exuded by numerous Libertarians on this forum and elsewhere in regards to the seeming omniscience that they seem to consiously or unconsiously attach to the founding fathers.
If you disagree, so be it. This is the distinct attitude they give off to myself however. .
No, they may THINK that, that doesn't mean that. See, words have meanings. Zealot has a specific meaning. Stating that "This is a Christian Nation" does not mean "its a nation of Zealots". It just doesn't. Ignorant people or bigoted people or prejudice people that think "religious person = zealot" can THINK that, but by the definition of what a Zealot is it does not mean it. .
Saying we're a Christian Nation and basing that statement off the fact that many of the beliefs and many traditions of this nation, not just by the founders in government but by the first citizens of this country, were founded in Christian belief and due to the fact that the majority of the country identifies itself as Christian is one thing that can be said and legitimately debated. .
Saying we're a Nation of Christian Zealots would mean that the majority of this nation are excessively zealous and fanatical in their following of Christianity, which simply is not factually correct. .
Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying.Or may be I don’t understand what you are saying.
This is another example of why you weren't suposed to vote for Obama.
What is wrong with having a deep appreciation for Islam?That is why he said Islam Has Shaped the U.S.A. He says...“We will convey,” said Barack Obama to the Turkish Parliament Monday, “our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...D-268E2A39A205
What is wrong with having a deep appreciation for Islam?
Picking a source – like dictionary, - which has to be void of historical details and perspective, because it is not the task of a dictionary to provide historical details or perspective clearly demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.How are you wrong....let us count the ways:
1. Neither the word nor the concept is innately Christian.
Secular
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date:
14th century
1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>
2. Muslims have for centuries had separate secular and ecclesiastical authorities. The majority of Arab/Islamic nations have such separations: The Presidents of Egypt and Syria are not clerics, neither is King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, neither is King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein of Jordan.
3. Atheists themselves are generally (sometimes rudely) aggressive in their championing of secular authority.
4. Christian teachers from St. Paul on down have instructed the Christian faithful to sustain their faith throughout their daily lives; my understanding is that Jewish rabbi's offer similar instruction to their faithful; Buddhists are guided in practicing "simple mindfulness". Each after their own fashion, for every religion, "domination of their beliefs in each and every aspect of human activities is the goal of their activity."
I need read no more than the Sermon on the Mount to marvel at the impiety of your intolerance and narrowmindness. (That whole bit about "blessed are the meek....")
Who said that the US is an Islamic Nation?Nothing, but if you formulate the US is an Islam nation then something is wrong here.
If some of you are going to push this new age moronic BS that the Founding Fathers did not base their decisions and thus the foundations of this society in Judeo-Christian belief then make the Founding Fathers Aliens!...and the US based on Satanism.
The line is so ignorance based and so lacking of either common sense or historical backing that its pathetic that some of you buy into it. Whats worse though is the "teachers" who peddle this inane BS.
Bravo. Seems like someone just received their Far-Right Evangelist talking points.If some of you are going to push this new age moronic BS that the Founding Fathers did not base their decisions and thus the foundations of this society in Judeo-Christian belief then make the Founding Fathers Aliens!...and the US based on Satanism.
The line is so ignorance based and so lacking of either common sense or historical backing that its pathetic that some of you buy into it. Whats worse though is the "teachers" who peddle this inane BS.
Satanism, as a belief system, is not widely accepted in the US; however it is widely practiced.
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?