I've been making some of these same points (and more) for ages, and the conservatives never address them, as Dan points out.
I'm more than willing to change my point of view on this, but the documentation is overwhelming. Seriously - loons - read the Federalist Papers if you have an interest in understanding the intent behind the various government documents. They will tell you, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the intent of the founders were.
Each time you claim "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values" - you are lying. I know you only do it as a propaganda tool, and I know you don't really care whether or not it's true. You only wish to advance your agenda of a "Chrisitan" U.S. Government.
I don't think people realize that when they talk about "Judeo-Christian" values that those values were actually around long before christianity. In fact, they were around long before the 10 commandments.
See, the first codified form of laws, the Hammurabi Code, has all of the particulars of the 10 commandmants, as do the tenents of Confuscism and Budhism.
Don't Kill, Don't Steal, Don't Cheat, Don't Lie, Respect people of a higher station.
All of those have been in every codified form of law ever written. That's right, EVER WRITTEN! The only thing that differs is the punishment for said offences and the exceptions and/or adherence to those laws.
The United States of America was founded on basic moral principle. Lets run through this point by point eh?
1. 7/9 Founders of this nation DENIED THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. They were deist and beleived in a creator but not in a christian God.
Your response: Nothing. It's fact. It's hard to deny things that are fact without using bizzare rationalizations which, actually, I still expect.
2. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin ( I use them because they are the predominant Desists of the 7) wrote paper after paper about the neccesity of a seperation of church and state and it being vital the the well being and longevity of any state. Take an inventory of world governments run by religion. Any of them sound like great living spots to you? Screw living, how about just vacationing? Religion ruins government. It has never worked. NEVER.
Your response: Apparently you think creator means God. Why, then, didn't they put God instead of creator? Maybe they meant Vishnu? Or Ahmen-Ra? They never put a name to this creator, but you assume it is of Abrahamic origin. Why not Zarathustra or Zarathuastrianism?
3. Numerous court rulings and government documents, both international and otherwise, refuting the assertion.
Your response: They suck. Yeah..okay.
So really, you lose this arguement so utterly and completely that only illogical, irrational, and misplaced faith is keeping you afloat. You desperately need this to be true or your world view falls apart. I have a feeling you call Doug a lot asking him questions about these sorts of things. Quit relying on Doug and start thinking for yourself.
17 comments:
I still don't understand how you come to the conclusion that Christians desire a theocracy. Christians simply desire fair representation in a society where it seems all other groups are receiving preferential treatment, but Christians are receiving the shaft on a daily basis, now even being set aside as certain concessions are being given to other religions, such as Islam. Your continued attack on this aspect of the issue, coupled with your pic from "V is for Vendetta," which seems to show from where your opinion is derived from(personally, I don't give much credit to anything Hollywood puts out), is fascinating, to say the least. It's a mischaracterization of the Christian point of view - something you continually accuse conservatives of doing when referring to liberals. I have never met a single Christian that wishes for a theocracy in this nation. In fact, Christians defend the right for anybody to freely practice one's religion regardless of religion, despite disagreements with such doctrines. I do find that Christians desire a continuation of freedom of religion, but it seems that bit by bit that freedom is being fragmented and challenged by the liberal left. Before you decide to characterize Christians, it might be prudent to understand them fully first, looking into a number of religions and Christian independents, rather than lumping all of them into your mold which is probably based on a view of a single religion in the widely diverse Christian Faith.
The reason it seems as though we are picking on Christianity is because it is Christianity that is attempting the majority of the blatantly unconstitutional things.
The majority of the people in this country are christian. Is it not then expected that the seperation of church and state will most readily clash with christianity?
Even setting that aside, the simple denial of the facts is astounding. How do you reconcile that? How do people, like Doug, continually spew that this country was founded on Christian values when that is, quite clearly, a lie?
So, for clarity, a summary.
1. It is not an attack on Christianity. It is an attack on religion in government regardless of beleif structure. If Islam, Confuscims, Taoism or any other religion were trying to influence the government in the ways Christian groups are now, I would have the EXACT same reaction. Tom even pointed out that he thought the Muslim allocation of prayer time was rediculous. You see it as attacking Christianity because that is who these infringments are being made by.
2. Lying, even for a good cause, is still lying. This country was not founded on Christian values anymore than it was founded on Babylonian values. This countries founders, for the most part, were not Christian. These are facts. Well documented facts. How is it then, being Christian, that you can justify lying about them?
3. Religious tolerance is a great thing. People can practice their religion whatever it is wherever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights and is not in my government. I don't beleive in christianity and I don't feel that my tax dollars should be going to it. Not to mention neither did Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or James Madison.
Explain what constitutional means. The left has successfully blurred the lines of the constitution, making it a 'living document' instead of what the founders intended.
Obviously you haven't read what the founders actually SAID about the Bible or religion...read Washington's farewell address, or any number of guys like John Adams. They not only talk repeatedly about the Bible and religion as a foundation for being a good person, but they also talk about limited government as the foundation of our freedoms.
None of which you know anything about, obviously.
And about the judeo-christian heritage that you consistently ridicule. Ever been to a courthouse lately and wonder why they have Moses standing there with the 10 commandments, or some other reference to it? hehehe
That's because our laws were based on mosaic law.
But of course, you wouldn't know anything about that. That's why you fling moonbatshit at people.
President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He reaffirmed faith towards Almighty God as Creator of mankind.
In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration. Those expressed values are of God and from God.
The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote it. John Jay applied it as law while he was the first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.
Fisher Ames, the same man who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms.
John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.
The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that “education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”
Did you know the Bible was a text book in schools until the '60's?
Too bad you missed that, leftard.
"The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams,
were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government." --official Library of Congress statement
"...both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate
for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."--official Library of Congress statement
Not that you would reading any of these types of documents, but it's empirical evidence that can not easily be refuted.
Have a happy leftard day, loser.
The only two points you made which you linked your sources both were PRIOR to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
Nobody is arguing that the nation predominant religion is Christianity, nor is anyone arguing that it did not have an influence in American politics. However, the Constitution is the defining document... designed by a bunch of Deists.. and interpreted many times by the SCOTUS to be wholly secular.
Dan has already debunked the rest of your drivel previous to you even posted it.
I love how he likes to claim that I myself have blurred the lines of what the Constitution...constitutes?...and then goes on about the Declaration of Independence. So, about which are we argueing? The Declaration of Independence, while being a historically significant document, has nothing to do with the governance of this nation. And, in fact, is closer in time frame to the Articles of Confederation where we tried that limited government thing you talked about. Notice how those arn't around anymore?
As an aside, I am flattered that you would ascribe to me the power to blur the lines of constitutionality. I suppose I should exercise such supreme authority more often.
So lets delve into the inane amount of posts you make starting with numero uno.
You talk about how I have no idea what the founders of this country said about religion, and yet you cite Washingtons farewell adress and, I'm qouting to show you your muse-like rhetoric...
" or any number of guys like John Adams"
Well, at least your concise...except the 6 other posts below it.
Well, shall I show you exactly how wrong you are? Where to begin.
How about this to begin with. A breif summation of Thomas Jefferson's views on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views
Now, in order to utilize these next 2, you need to look at them consecutively. Can you do that? Let's see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#Father_of_the_Constitution
Notice, James Madison is the father of the Constitution, not Governor Morris of Pennsylvania.
Now, to this particular peice...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/EM729.cfm
Notice this particular point:
In the fight to pass the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, he shamed Christian conservatives--who tried to insert the words "Jesus Christ" in an amended preamble--with these words: "The better proof of reverence for that holy name would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion...." In 1795, during a congressional debate over naturalization, he bluntly repelled anti-Catholic prejudices: "In their religion there was nothing inconsistent with the purest Republicanism." At age 65, in retirement at his estate in Virginia, Madison praised the separation of church and state because, by it, "the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased...."
And finally Ben Franklin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion_and_personal_beliefs
So, you see, your assertion, at least in that particular poorly written peice of peity is false. Lets move on to the next.
And about the judeo-christian heritage that you consistently ridicule. Ever been to a courthouse lately and wonder why they have Moses standing there with the 10 commandments, or some other reference to it? hehehe
Is this Rhalin? Because I can't think of a more pronounced yet easily rebuked view. I digress...
Yes, I have been to a courthouse to answer the question but no, I havn't seen moses or a cross anywhere in the building. In fact, it was ruled unconstitutional to do so. Probably why I didn't.
However, not only does your arguement fail in an empirical sense, it also fails through logical falacy. Simply because something is present in a building doesn't mean it holds sway or influence. Are you suggesting that if you took away the 10 commandments from a courthouse that those inside would suddenly be rendered into sadomasochistic sodomizing pagan serial killers? Your arguement holds no water.
Also, I did lol at "mosaic law"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic
A more correct term would've been Abrhamic, since you seem to enjoy picking out linguistical falacy about which you know nothing. Neverless, I press on.
The first paragraph, if I do call it that, in your 3rd post (there is no post counter btw. You don't get a prize for more posts. You just look retarded and incapable of coherent thought.) you again speak of the Declaration. I thought we were talking about the Constitution. And, btw, that particular phrase was originally penned by a man named John Locke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
but was edited by Jefferson to include pursuit of happiness instead of property.
You then, again, point out the reference to a creator as some sort of proof that the document is Christian. How is naming an ambigous creator Christian? If they were trying to point out a christian God, why not say God? I'll give you a hint, it's because they wern't.
Your second paragraph is not only speculation but categorically untrue. Where did the founders say they wanted the declaration to be included in interpreting the Constitution? Can you give a source for such a claim, or do you just spout drivel out of habbit? Irregardless, you're wrong. For many other reasons, but the princple one being that the Articles of Confederation where in between the Constitution and the Declaration, which means there was, at some point, a paradigm shift in the way they thought the government should run in between. You fail.
Your last three one sentence divides seem to ramble on and on. One is from somone who actually was at the Constitutional Convention, which is relevant, one is from a Supreme Court Justice, which is irrelevant when talking about the intent of the creators, and one is stating that a guy talked a lot. Your pentient for thorough and careful discussion is astounding.
In your 4th post...do these ever have a point?...you point out the the bible was in schools until 1960. Wow.
Here's something almost as relevant. My feet kinda hurt, and my room is sorta stuffy. I'm gonna go turn on a fan.
See, just stating facts without making a point makes you retarded. I assume think that that means that the seperation of church and state is false because books are in school. Well, we beleived the earth was flat until the 1500s. I suppose we should go back to that since we did beleive, and obviously past precident overrules common sense.
PS: We also have, currently in schools, books advocating Evolution, which must mean that the founders thought evolution was good RIGHT! I'll add a /end sarcasm in case you didn't get that.
You then go on to point out that our first 2 presidents were Christians.
Wow, our 3rd president was a diest and did more to found this country than Washington or Adams did. How much more compelling an arguement.
Your next statement, again, talks about legislators and constituents, not founders or writers of the constitution. What the fuck do you want to talk about? We are talking about the constitution and it's founders intent. Linking extraneous shit just makes you look retarded. For fucks sake, take some Aderoll and get with the program.
And then, after Tom makes the point, you still claim that your evidence points to how the FOUNDERS felt, when you actually link shit about how people who arn't the founder felt.
John Jay-Not a founder.
Abraham Lincolon-Not a founder
The public-Not a founder
Legislators-Not founders.
The only founders you managed to dredge up were Washington, Adams, and Ames. All of which contributed much less than Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.
And God damn! How many times do I have to go through that the so-called "Mosaic Law"...I'm still laughing...is not unique to christianity. It is in every form of law since The Hammurabi Code. Dispute that, and maybe we can have a discussion. I find it more likely, however, that you will try and dispute it but go off on some tangent and link things that don't matter as that's all I've seen you do so far.
Our laws were not based on the code of the hammurabi (check your spelling again, leftard), they were based on the Mosaic law. You see, the Hammarubi are from the ancient land of Baylon, which in today's world is IRAQ.
Our laws COULD HAVE been based on the code of the hammurabi, but then we'd probably all look middle eastern, and our heritage would be much different than predominantly anglosaxon.
Leftard.
CHECK YOUR SPELLING, IDIOTS!
14-year old girl. meh!
The mosaic law is the ten commandments, leftard. It was given to the Israelites through Moses and is still the basis of Christianity, which is why we talk about Judeo-Christian values. They come from the same roots.
The only difference is, the Jews are still waiting for the messiah, the Christians believe Christ is the messiah and he came here already.
DUH! Get a book, leftard!
The Mosaic Law begins with the ten commandments and includes a lot of the observances in the first five books of the Old Testament. But because we're in the 'age of grace', we no longer abide by all the little rituals of the law. The old testament is not even followed by pious orthodox Jews, which is kind of interesting. On the one hand, they don't acknowledge Christ, but on the other, they're no longer doing animal sacrifice and all the rest that was prescribed in the old testament.
Not that you would know anything about that stuff, TOM.
Why don't you stick with what you know?
Oh, I see what you mean. Guess that would leave you with nothing to write about.
That's why you rely on other people for you material, isn't it?
Because you really have no original thoughts, and you really don't understand what's going on in general.
That stuff about George Soros is true, by the way -
In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”
Where the hell did you get that bullshit about the founders being deists? Again, you're not all that bright!!!
Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and succinct reply, and keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders:
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . [T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship.
Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?[3]
John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4]
Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5]
This was, in fact, the basis for the system of government in America, as Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:
The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]
Footnote 3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on Nov. 30, 1802.
Footnote 4. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421, dairy entry for July 26, 1796.
Footnote 5. John Adams (1735-1826), (L.H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Press, 1961), Vol. III, p. 9. [February 22, 1756]
Footnote 6. Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40
So are they talking about code of the hammurabi here, slick?
I don't see any mention of Babylon anywhere in here.
lol
LEFTARD ASS!
God you are fucking retarded. I can understand why you need to post 12 times...you can't create a semi-coherent sentence any other way.
Not only did you not refute 3/4 of what I said, you don't even really argue the other 1/4 of the points I make, you just repeat what you already said like it's new material. It's astounding that you might beleive in the Clap Louder theory. This is as much a debate as a sociological insight.
So,let me get this straight.
You say that our system of laws is not based on the code of hammurabi, which in actuallity every codified form of laws is, and that somehow we are instead founded on mosaic law. I've already explained how a more correct term would be abrhamic law unless you mean to tell me that are laws are peices of art involving glass or stone peices. Again, rhetorically concise posts are obviously something you arn't good at. A-hyuck!
Your only arguement that our system of laws isn't based on Babylonian principle is that it was made a long ways away and therefore couldn't be. Your astute observation, while tritely ignorant, still has no value. You lose, yet again.
I would also wonder, since you claim America is based on Abhramic law, where the provision is for selling my daughter into slavery? Or stoning people who eat shellfish?
So, I guess you'll probably comeback with something like "IT WAS FROM BABYLON!!!11one!! It's FAR AWAY!IT WAS NOT!" \
Your next post is simply a restatement that Samuel Adams and John Adams were not deists. I never argued that point but you seem to feel the need to reiterate. Fine.
However, your quote by Ben Franklin proves nothing except that you are, in his own words....
[T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue .
That is in YOUR Ben Franklin quote where he calls you weak and ignorant. I have to laugh. You do my job for me.
Not only that, but he never says that the paper is bad, just that he wouldn't right it and he would draw lots of criticism for no gain. He never affirms a beleif in Jesus or God.
And yet, I offer you evidence that Ben Franklin was, in fact, a deist, which you have yet to refute.
So, now you have 2 people who are christian who are "founding fathers" and I have 3 who are deists.
And wtf does George Soros have anything to do with the intent of the founding fathers of this country? Please, at least try and keep your ADD in check while typing.
So, you not only have succesfully called yourself weak and ignorant, but also failed to provide any real refuting evidence. UR BAD.
Christians: Sam Adams, John Adams.
Deists: Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson.
I just realized that in your first post you made the assumption that in order to have a culture based on another, you must be of the same genetic race.
LOL.
You really are fundamentally retarded arn't you? Wait...I know the answer. Nevermind.
No offense Tom, but having your own Righwing Loon makes this blog soooo much more fun to read. When are we gonna start up your other one anyway? I'm totally getting a ton of ideas. Flagrant use of the word, I use that term loosely, "Libtard" and telling people they suck.
Post a Comment