Is the US "a Christian country"? And

:lol:

 

Well, a national poll in 2001 of 113,000 people found that 76.5% of them identified themselves as Christian.

The Constitution states that the Federal Government shall make no laws establishing religion, but certainly did not state that it shall make laws abolishing religious expression as is desired by extremist atheists.

As for Jefferson's "Wall of Seperation", I'm no expert, but I do believe he was talking about government, not private enterprise, yet you started your post with an example of private enterprise.

 

I 'll bet you are pro-choice and anti-death penalty right? Is that any more contradictory than your earlier example?

 

I always find it annoying when people take a bad event (natural disaster, terrorist attack) and put a punishment-from-God slant to it.

I think back to movies (no real-life example I know of) about tropical-island witch-doctors demanding a virgin be thrown into a volcano to appease the gods. Only 2 possible outcomes anyway: the volcano stops or it kills everyone on the island, but if it does stop after a virgin or twenty then the witch-doctor can claim success.

It's that CLAIM to success that I see all the time from Religious Leaders (no specific religion required) who give God credit for the good stuff and 'bad behavior' of the people for the bad. 100% accurate, since no outside verification of a non-God component in the bad stuff is acceptable. Part-and-parcel with Intellegent Design/Creationism, where you'd have to prove somehow that God isn't back there somewhere even if a few extra (million) years ARE involved in Creation. Any misinterpretation of the length of a 'day' doesn't make a story incorrect, just innaccurate.

So we end up with the basic religion practiced by the majority of the founders of the US being listened too WAY too much for a country with a Separation of Church and State clause in its Constitution, and every time something bad happens we'll hear that Rock Music or Sex Outside of Marriage or Rampant Homosexuality has made God slam planes into buildings or direct hurricanes at sinful cities like it's TRUE.

If only there were an Old Testament-like voice from the clouds included, it wouldn't seem to me like as much of a scam as it does. Other people refuse to accept it as a scam, and that's why it'll never end. God punished you for THIS, then later he punished you for THAT, and if anything goes bad later it must be something God has decided is bad so nobody do anything new until we figure out what God is mad at.

Too bad everybody wants to go to heaven, and calling Religious Leaders who promote peace until some other religion threatens their power to tell people what to do ("Thou Shalt Not Kill Until My Authority Is In Danger") 'frauds' might interfere with that...

 

WRONG, be careful with your bets
My personal stance is irrelevant to this discussion; I have no inclination to ponder to your incendiary provocations

 

So you are pro-choice, pro-death penalty or pro-life and anti death-penalty?

 

You are full of it, you are absolutley pro-choice, anti-death penalty. I usually pander to your incendiary provocations, that is what makes PC so captivating.

 

I would argue that pro-choice and anti-death penalty allows for more "wiggle room" than pro-life and pro-death penalty. Many people who are pro-life believe what they believe because they think that you shouldn't take a human life. If you believe that, it's hard to justify being pro-death penalty.

HOWEVER, people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty can argue that an embryo is not self-aware, intelligent, really human yet, etc. . . if that's what you believe, than having an abortion is quite different from killing a fully-formed human (no matter how dispicable/evil that human may be).

 

Could your disgust against Christians have a thinner veil? :lol:

A statement like that further supports just how out of touch you are on various issues, this one in particular. Most Pope recognizing Christians are pro-life AND anti death penalty.

 

Really? I'd like to see proof of that assertion. In researching the treaty, and it's various translations, there are a couple of interesting points. An American diplomat named Joel Barlow translated the original treaty text from Arabic into the commonly known English translation, including article 11, the article in question.
There is debate as to whether or not this wording is accurately translated from the Arabic, but it was Barlow's English translation that was read to and ratified by the Senate (and entered into the Senate record), and Barlow's translation was signed by the president. Barlow's translation, in English, is the 'official' treaty, as it was the one legally ratified and signed by the United States.

It is worth noting that the text as commonly known was ratified on June 10th, 1797, and was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th with article 11 intact. This kind of blows your assertion that a translator in France put the phrase in as a joke. Bear in mind, that communication between Europe and the United States often took months by ship... it just isn't possible that someone in France altered the treaty between June 10th when the Senate approved it and June 17th when it was printed in a Philadelphia paper. Why do you hate the French so much, anyway? Of course, other copies and Senate records back up my points.

As well, you can see scans of the two original copies of the treaty, written in Joel Barlow's own handwriting and signed by him here. That page also lists where the copies of the treaty exist in the National Archives, and where you can find the original Senate treaty.

Don't trust Wikipedia? I can't argue with you on that one. I didn't rely solely on Wikipedia when doing the research, though. If you simply google "Treaty of Tripoli", you'll find many trustworthy sources, including Yale's law school. Still don't believe me? Well, how about a link to the scanned records of Congress containing the text of the treaty as it was read to the Senate? It can be found at the Library of Congress website. This site brings up pages 3093 and 3094 of the record. To get to article 11, you'll have to click on the Next Image link, and look at the bottom of page 3095/top of 3096.

The treaty is real, the text of the treaty is real and is accurately displayed, and the Senate ratified it as the 'official' version.

Still have an argument on this one?

Dan

 

History on the "In God We Trust" thingy on currency from the U.S. Treasury...

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-we-trust.shtml


Here's an interesting quote:

"A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States."

So, no, this isn't a Christian country... :lol:

 

"American is not a Christian Nation, but is a nation of (mostly) Christians."

It is my observation that most right-wing, self-proclaimed Christians simply fail to grasp this distinction. It is ignorance, though I don't know if it is taught or simply a lack of intelligence or interest. But the fact that this difference does not resonate with them is the source of the problem.

There is no doubt the intent of those who wrote our founding documents and served in our early government inderstood and supported this distinction.

Having the Government take a neutral stance on religion in no way prevents them from personally exercising their religion. It stops tax money from advocating religion.

If you want to live in a country where the prevailing religion has infiltrated government, I suggest the middle east. Isn't everything wonderful where armies and governments are driven by man in the name of God?

 

When the 9th Circuit Court rejected the pledge of allegiance a few years back, they did so based on the fact that Congress had added the phrase "under God" to the pledge back in the 50's. The plantiff asserted that Congress violated the first amendment of the Constitution by creating a law establishing religion. As you know, the first amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". A law inserting "under God" into the pledge clearly establishes religion, and clearly violates the Constitution. The plantiff asserted that a teacher-led (and therefore government sponsored) classroom recitation of the pledge damaged his daughter. The 9th circuit agreed, and prohibited the school system from leading students in the "under God" portion of the pledge. This essentially reverted the pledge back to it's pre-1950's version, which did not include "under God".

This was, of course, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the 9th circuit court's decision. Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not address whether or not Congress acted in violation of the Constitution, rather they found that since the plantiff did not legally have custody of his daughter, they rejected his ability to bring suit. The court therefore avoided ruling on the real issue at hand, which was whether or not adding "under God" to the pledge violated the first amendment. I'm of the opinion that had the Supreme Court not dodged the issue on a technicality, they would have upheld the 9th Circuit's decision.

Michael Nedow, the original plantiff, is now representing other plantiffs who actually have legal custody of their children, and plans to take the issue back through the courts. This will essentially force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the issue head on.

Some critics have argued that references to God are historic dieism, and a tribute to history. These critics also argue that references to God on things like money and on the facade of the Supreme Court are merely representations of history, and are not to be taken as a literal endorsement of religion. The actions in the 1950's regarding the pledge were clearly meant as an endorsement of religion, though, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Why is this relevant? The law you quoted regarding "In God We Trust" as the national motto probably also violates the first amendment, and will likely be struck down if Michael Nedow succeeds.

Dan

 

And of course the Christianists will denounce those bringing the suits, or the courts ruling on it, as "attacking religion". When of course, all they're doing is upholding the "attack" on religion that was deliberately included in the constitution of the country by its founders, who knew all too well that religion and government don't mix - Iran's the topical example of that.

If they've got a problem with that, they should be attempting to fix it at source - ie an amendment to the constitution.

 

Which is why I mentioned earlier that was is written is not necessarily a representation of reality.

I suspect the Justices at the time were probably Christians, and effectively made the issue "go away" on a technicality without going against their personal ethics/beliefs (after all, what hardcore Christian wants to rule against the Lord?). Given the majority presence of Catholicism throughout the country, no one is/was in any rush to change it anyway.

Regardless, it does not make the country any less Christian oriented.

 

You are probably right, but you also give something away. You hint that the justices may have made it 'go away' on a technicality because they didn't want to have to rule against religion. Why, then, didn't they just rule for religion and not use the technicality?

Simply put, they can't. Even the Supreme Court can recognize when a law is clearly unconstitutional. Granted, the correct decision would be highly unpopular with the Christian right, which is good reason to 'avoid' the decision. Granted, the Christian right is powerful, and Christians are in the majority in this country, but the Constitution was created to keep the minorty protected from the will of the majority.

In this case, the constitution is doing it's job.

Catholicism isn't a majority religion in the United States, did you mean Christianity?

 

Wow, I AGREE with all points!

...and yes, I probably meant Christianity...

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. Didn't quite express it well enough ... Christians in the 18th century felt that all were children of God, even those that didn't acknowledge God. Most Christians today wouldn't recognize these guys as truly Christian because of the cultural differences that have crept in (including some theological beliefs that were not in existance in the early 1800s.) Most people identifying themselves as Christian today are pre-millienial "rapture" folks, a concept completely foreign to the Christian church throughout history. The 18th Century Christian felt that the duty of the church was to create "heaven on earth" and then, when society was perfected, Jesus would return. The incentive then was to be open and accepting, encouraging inquiry, etc. Much different than our reputation today, I'm afraid.

America was founded by some pretty religious guys, and some not so religious guys, and a couple of guys openly hostile to religion. The majority, who were Christians, were perfectly satisfied to be working side by side with the agnostics and the few atheists for what all considered a noble cause.

Thomas Paine was one atheist (as far as I can tell ... see "Common Sense"). Jefferson falls under the Deist label, with leanings toward Unitarianism later in life, but was vehemently anti-Catholic (or "anti-papist"). The one guy I haven't been able to really figure out is James Madison, who as most people know, is considered the "Father of the Constitution". He was kind of a protege' of Jefferson, and very involved in getting Virginia to declare religious liberty and break the ties to the extremely ridgid and overbearing Church of England. But I don't know if he was a religious Christian, a nominal Christian, an agnostic or an atheist.

Nearly every other founder you can think of was a member in good standing of an established Christian denomination.

While the federal government dis-established religion, the federal Congress did still encourage the states to use the Bible for school instruction, and to encourage general Christian education with state funds. In fact, the Northwest Ordindance requires it of any new territory that wants to become a state ("republics", such as California and Texas, did not have to comply with this requirement in the Northwest Ordinance as they were soverign states before joining the Union). Nearly every state after the original 13 came in with this understanding, and if you research the original state constitutions, most of them have very religious language in them. Often they had a religious means test to hold statewide office.

But (what I call) the great "Christian idea of dis-establishment" and separation of church and state spread, and by the mid 1800's all of the states had broken ties with churches. It wasn't until the 1960's that Christians started thinking "separation" was a bad idea, mainly in resonse to the prohibition on school prayer.

 

I think you have to consider another issue, and that is the improper application of the death penalty. I don't mean just the fact that a black man killing a white person is likely to get the death penalty then the obverse. Also, many on death row may actually be innocent. And if one person on death row is innocent, is it worth the risk to execute them to ensure 99 guilty people die?

Now I don't pretend to know the answer, but that is the issue that worries me. I have no problem with child molesters and serial killers getting their due. There was an HBO show called "Murder on a Sunday Afternoon", it won an Oscar for best documentary. It shows how some cops in Florida beat a confession out of a young black man and brought him to trial for 1st degree murder, punishable by death. He was found not guilty and 4 months later the defense attorney...yes, the defense attorney...helped locate the actual murderer. The wrongly accused kid just happened to be in the area and happened to be black.

It really opened my eyes to what injustice is happening in this country.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/murder_sunday/