- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
As stated in the piece:
"-- In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America's first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that "all possess alike liberty of conscience" and that "toleration" was an "inherent national gift," not the government's to dole out or take away
-- In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America's earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) ..."
-- In 1802, Jefferson added his famous "wall of separation," implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).
These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, "inconvenient truths" to those who proclaim that America is a "Christian Nation."
is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
why do we have to keep arguing this?!
The cost of dealing with reality would be too great for them. To lose the belief that a life of selflessness (altruism) would guarantee their immortality and to admit it's evilness-or to take responsibility for their own morality, even if it means relying on magic-or to admit that other's beliefs are just as valid reached through reason individually rather than 'as told by God'-or that pure evil is done in the name of their religion--it's just toooo hard.
Muslims and Jews have their own countries, the Enlightenment stopped Christian countries--they want one back
Please note that:
•The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?
•It may occur to critics that the phrase "founded on the Christian religion" would have a certain meaning to those whose state were "founded on" the Islamic religion -- a "Mehomitan nation". The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America.
Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government.
If you truly want to understand the overall context, you can read more about it here - http://tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.php
John Adams didn't write the treaty, he was president when it was ratified. The original text of the treaty was written in Arabic and translated to English by John Barlow.
The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic].
I really tire of having to do history research for you and Dale. This information is readily available should you just do a web search.
You can interpret history any way you want, but you cannot recraft it to be the way you wished it to be. The US is not a theocracy if that was what you were trying to "prove." However, it is well documented that the founding fathers used a Judeo/Christian ethos as a primary guiding hand in creating the nation. In fact, they believed that it was necessary to have this foundation to interpret and understand the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Those are indisputable historical fact. You cannot rewrite history, unless you are seeking to be a dictator, in which case you can do whatever you want.
I've never sought to deny Scott or the providers of this forum some due compensation. And since it looks like there may be an end in sight with the premier of the 3rd film, I thought it was time to re-initiate compensation.
Truth be told, I was on this site as a "producer" prior to your ever finding it (OA and I had many interesting discussions).
I don't take away from anything that you've added - with the point total that you have, it is clear that you have been a prodigious contributor. But the fact that you seemed to discount my value merely because of a current payment status, is disappointing.
But, why would that matter? Have I taken anything from you?
Scott and I have had a discussion on my participation on the site. How does our accommodation affect you or your evaluation of my participation of me on the site?
It is curious to me that those who have no financial value stake in this site place value on those of us who were identified as "producers" or "moochers." Without knowing that I (or others) had previously been "producers" or not, or whether we had been providing other compensation, you seem to have placed a different "value" on our contribution vs. others who had a golden dollar sign next to their handle.
For this specific site, isn't Scott the one who decides value? And should he decide that a contributor provide same, who are you to judge differently?
When I joined back up after a hiatus, I looked to see if my intellectual contributions were sufficient to garner me "producer of the month" status. I don't really care whether or not I was able to achieve same. I relish the interaction, but am disappointed that those who claim to be rational thinkers are unable to examine thought in a rational manner.
this statement is just not true. In Declaration, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights-not one is consistent with the 10 Commandments. However, these documents are based on 1. natural rights(owning oneself) and 2. property rights(owning your own property) neither of which are considered in the Bible to be important. You owe your life and your property to God.
- ...equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
- We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...
From the US Constitution: This is a document on how the gov't is to be created and the responsibilities of the various branches. It also says nothing about murder or theft being illegal, so what's your point? The property rights aspect is rather mild, with a statement that the congress can implement (not that it had to!) essentially a copyright/trademark/patent office - they shall have the power, not they shall establish. Big difference.
Bill of Rights: Same comments as the Constitution.
You believe in a non-existant phantasm: "natural rights".
See, you should leave belief to the believers.
I do NOT owe my life and my property to God.
I and my property ARE God's property.
If you create a thing, is it your property?
And let's just give you one example:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property"
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
Note that in the 2nd Amendment, it is accepted that the rights of "the People" refers to individual rights.
And what do we say about the "looters and moochers"? They use the power of government to take other people's property. Right there in the Constitution, which deals with government/people interaction, not people/people interaction, it says the government shall not covet an individual's goods.
what are you even talking about? I'm hardly "hidden" I have a comment with a collection of quotes here that would refute your claim. As well, Jefferson said there was no Religion in Common law, which highly influenced the Amendments.
There is a difference between the nature of the nation and what the Founding Fathers were attempting to promote.
In my heart, I try to be 6'7" tall. That's my intent. "As my body is not in any sense founded in the genetic predisposition for any given height, there is nothing in my genetic makeup keeping me from being 6'7" tall".
I can say that all day long. I can believe that all day long as I try to stretch myself out on a rack.
But,the fact of the matter is, there IS a genetic predisposition to diminutive stature in my family (by today's standards). My father was 5'10"... my mother 4'11". All her sisters and her mother were shorties.
All the men who signed the DoI were raised in Christian households, lived in Christian-dominated societies where the cultural mores and accepted truths were steeped in Christian traditions.
If your premises and presumptions are based in a certain cultural philosophy, no matter what LEGAL structures you erect, the society will still be founded upon that cultural philosophy.
For the willfully stupid out there. America was not inevitable. It was not the result of a group of guys in a tavern saying, "y'know, we should plan out the perfect society with scientific insight from bodies of study that don't even exist yet"
It was the result of Italians prospering and conquering outlying cultures, including, fortunately, those of the British isles.
It was the result of the Son of God sacrificing Himself for our sins, in a message so powerful and meaningful to the people of that era that it pushed aside the functional pagan religions of the era, and introduced the idea of the individual as having his own divine spark and value.
It was the result of Richard Lionheart constantly getting his ass captured and needing to be rescued trying to free the Holy Land.
It was the result of King John, as a result of the above, developing an appetite for taxation.
It was the result of Henry VIII wanting yet another wife.
It was the result of Martin Luther's objection to the corruptions of the Catholic Church.
It was the result of the Inquisition's creation in an attempt to battle the expansion of Islam.
In short, it was the culmination of the cultural history of white anglo-saxon males, which was for most of the preceding millennium steeped in Christian beliefs and premises.
Anyone who thinks that we are not a "Christian nation' must logically conclude that Obama's upbringing in Islam-dominated Indonesia had no effect on his cultural outlook... and therefore must turn a blind eye to the why of the disaster our foreign and domestic policies are.
the 1st Amendment is carefully worded, and is very clear to anyone who knows history and English, to prevent the GOVERNMENT from IMPOSING a STATE CHURCH on the people, as happened when the British legislature (parliament) created the Anglican Church to serve Henry VIII's SECULAR PURPOSES.
This is not the same thing as us being a Christian nation, which refers to our culture, not our state religion.
The first item is merely a fundamental tenet of Judeo/Christianity that all are equal.
The second is pandering to Muslims.
The third is actually a call that gov't should not interfere in religion, not the other way around.
Thomas Paine: Let us learn from the errors of other nations, and lay hold of the present opportunity to begin government at the right end" Common Sense
Jefferson: " the first was a government of kings, the second of priest-craft, and the third of Reason."
Colonel Ethan Allen (revolutionary hero, Battle of Fort Ticonderoga) titled his book on religion, "Reason Is The Only Oracle Of Man."
John Adams:"The United States Is Not A Christian Nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate and passed into Law by Jon Adams.
Protestant minister, Dr. Byrd Wilson, 1831: "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson] not a one professed a belief in Christianity."
John Adams to Jefferson in a letter: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
Jefferson: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." 1781-82 Notes on the State of Virginia.
Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
Jefferson: "The priests of the different religious sects...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live." letter to Correa de Serra, 1820.
Finally, let us not forget, many of the colonies had laws against blasphemy. The passage of the Constitution made such illegal.
Reference and compilation of these quotes: Thomas Malone's, "A Defense of American Ideals," ch.8, which has been reviewed on this site.
Said right after Jefferson set the precedent of SCREWING our allies. In this case, with lethal results.
There should have been no treaty of Tripoli.
From Wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt (but accurate on this point):
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights
Main articles: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, whose letter to the Danbury Baptists Association is often quoted in debates regarding the separation of church and state.
In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[15]
Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789).
And you say I need to read history?
Who knows, who cares? Probably thought that he could write it better.
I prove you wrong and you just want to deflect the issue.
THAT is what history tells us, as well.
Rent a clue... what was the percentage of non-Christians in the colonies at the time of the founding? What was the religious background of those who came to the New World to form the original colonies... often to practice their religions without government interference?
To pretend that the nation was founded in a theological vacuum, that the CHRISTIAN CULTURE had no influence whatsoever on the nature of the nation is irrational... willful blindness.
Christianity is intimately intertwined with the culture of the founding of the nation. Even self-proclaimed "deists" were CULTURALLY influenced by Christianity; in that they thought in a framework of Christian values, values ground into them in childhood.
THIS is the problem of Obama; he is NOT culturally American and therefore NOT culturally Christian. And look what kind of job he's done in the White House.
Congratulations... you found something in common with Obama.