OT - Judeo-Christian nation?"

Don't blame us! We didn't have a darn thing to do with it. We're a hive mind. Such problems never come up.

You guys broke away 3.5 million yarons ago and you've been nothing but trouble ever since.

Love, The Martian Borgprecursors, happily living in the Hollow Earth.

Gee. I thought you were a Yooper. Yoopers are from...Neptune, isn't it?

My ancestors were fine, founding Americans. My dad said that our coat of arms showed a man running a horse out of a barn with another man chasing him with a shotgun. It was kind of artsy.

Do Yoopers paint their houses yet? They're really good at keep their property tax ratings down. d8-)

-- Ed Huntress

What exactly from those pages do you contend that "liberals don't like" ?

Perhaps the most obvious questionable issue would be the services held in the house chamber, however it's not clear to me that this could not be done in a way that would pass constitutional muster today. The apparent variety of services held then might not be enough today - today you would probably have to provide equal access not just to deistic unitarians and their sacred coffee urn, but to non-religious groups as well.

Generally, what you seem to have found is evidence of a growing nation experimenting with the balance between a controversial subject such as religion in general, in specific, in public, and in private. In other words, doing exactly what "liberals" would hope it would.

Ed had some quotes that with his explanation contradict the actions of the founding fathers. I pasted many quotes that were backed up by the actions of the founding fathers. Ed thinks his understanding is correct, there is no point in arguing with him. He could also claim the Earth is flat, no use in arguing that either. I pasted quotes and actions, he pasted quotes with spin, believe what you want.

RogerN

You can make this real simple, Roger. The question was whether the US and the US Constitution were founded on Christian principles. Just consider the major principles of our government at the time of the founding, such as equality under the law, democratic government, civilian control of the military, and especially free speech and freedom of religion, and ask yourself where, in 18th-century Christianity, such ideas appear.

They don't appear anywhere in Christian doctrine. Where they *do* appear is in Enlightenment principles. Several decades later, Christians adopted them in a confusing and sometimes contradictory way. But they were not "Christian" principles.

If you can find examples of 18th-century Christian doctrine that support, say, freedom of religion, we're all ears.

-- Ed Huntress

Ed, you're like a professor who turns the stupidest question into a learning opportunity for the class. Your replies are enlightening many of us, but RogerN, he jus don wanna be lerned...

In Christianity from the beginning their has been different denominations with different ideas on many details. The Bible doesn't approve of false religions of worshipping false God's but I find zero examples of Jesus cramming his teachings down anyone's throats or trying to force them to his "religion".

All I can say is that Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter containing the words "separation of Church and State", two days later he was attending Christian church in a government owned building. He also supported Christian missionaries with government money for the work they were doing among the Indians. Today if he were to do such a thing the ACLU would have him in court. I don't have a way to go back in time to take a poll to determine everyone's beliefs and motivations but I find zero evidence supporting that they believed in any other God than the God of the Bible.

RogerN

It's a far reach from that claim to Jefferson's statement in _Notes on the State of Virginia_, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Neither the old nor the new testament shows much tolerance for 20 gods, at least 19 of which must be "false Gods." We won't complicate this with the trinity-versus-unitarian argument. Say, then, there were at least 17 false Gods.

If you've ever read Jefferson's _Notes..._ (his only book), you'll see that most of his comments about religion refer to the intolerant practices of the Christian church in colonial times, and the corrections to those practices that must be made in the new government.

If that's all you can say, what does it have to do with the idea that the US Constitution was founded on "Christian principles"? It seems to have nothing to do with it. Rather, it seems to be what cs_posting was talking about when he said, very accurately, IMO:

"Generally, what you seem to have found is evidence of a growing nation experimenting with the balance between a controversial subject such as religion in general, in specific, in public, and in private. In other words, doing exactly what "liberals" would hope it would."

What the Founders constructed was a government that allowed people to follow their religious consciences. Whether a service should be conducted in a government-owned building is a side issue. The point was, the government was to stay out of anything to do with religion itself. We've grown increasingly attentive to that principle over time. And a wall of separation, which both Madison and Jefferson advocated, definitely was NOT a "Christian principle" as it was understood at the time.

We aren't talking about what they believed in. There is plenty of evidence to show that it was an ambiguous set of beliefs, firm only in the first principle of Deism and with a mixture of figurative and literal references to Jesus and to Christianity, which they viewed as separate subjects.

We're talking about the "principles" upon which our government was founded. You still haven't shown us any principles drawn from Christianity that support equality under the law, democratic government, civilian control of the military, free speech, and freedom of religion.

-- Ed Huntress

Your mistake is in seeing these things as a contradictory. The nascent idea of separation of church and state in that era referred specifically to preventing the federal government from establishing a specific national religion or religious requirement. And that is not what was being done in these services, instead they seem to have opened the doors to a wide variety of different perspectives, something that if done right (including non-religious ones) could probably still pass constitutional muster today.

Ever consider they might have been the only people willing to tackle the task of trying to "civilize" the natives? Now history may judge that the attempt caused a lot of harm reaching to this day, but at that point in time it seemed like a good project. And this funding is thus quite explainable as an attempt to leverage the existence of those with religious zeal as a low-cost way of trying to achieve a secular national purpose.

Depends. If comparable funding were available to religious and purely social missionaries, if some restrictions were in place (no buying bibles to hand out with government money, etc) they might be okay with it. Consider the recent "faith based initiatives" idea - controversial, but not impossible to implement.

Your mistake is in thinking that anyone has suggested otherwise. Perhaps you are not familiar with the meaning of the word "Deism". The 11th grade public school definition is the belief in an original creator who then takes a relatively hands off attitude towards events on earth. Most deists would consider consider the incumbent cultural god (biblical god in the american case) to be a larger-than-life myth built upon this creator.

You would think that if we were a Christian nation, the name of Jesus Christ would appear prominently in our founding documents. Yet in the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is NO mention of Jesus, and only a small nod to a Creator.

Have you ever been to a Christian gathering where Christ is never mentioned? Have you ever read the founding documents of a Christian sect that does not mention Jesus?

America never was and never will be a "Christian" nation.

Copied from another newsgroup:

GOD vs. Science, good argument!

Not that I am introducing religious discussion here on the group, but I came across an interesting argument made by a clear thinking student to his university Professor in class.....

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? "Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?" The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

Unfortunately, you're the one who is "spinning". As is usually the case when one makes a bad argument, you start off with a belief and then go about finding facts that prove your belief. You have chosen to believe in god. You WANT to believe in god. Then you look high and low to find proof of what you chose to believe. Most of your proof comes from the Bible. Not a surprise you find most of your evidence there. But when you really look at the facts you will notice that you can't make a convincing case, to an unbiased person, they should believe as you do. You believe as you do because you chose to. Others choose not to believe in things they have to accept on the words of others or worse, on faith. In every area of life aside from religion I'm sure you don't accept things on faith. It should be a red flag to you that the only area in which you give up the principles of reason and facts is in your religious beliefs, which shows how bad you want to believe in god. And no matter how many quotes from people who lived hundreds of years ago you have it will never win any argument they knew any more than we do today about supernatural beings. They may have believed in them based on faith. Nowadays, you are going to find fewer and fewer people who will do that. If you can't produce the goods backing up your claims you aren't going to convince us that you know what you are talking about, and when you are trying to prove something improvable exists you have an impossible job to do. But a good zealot never quits. How about you?

Hawke

Religion has no corner on zealots. We learn more every day about the enormous complexity of DNA and the microscopic machinery that manipulates it. We discover the fact that a single malfunction of any part of a cell's complicated reproductive capability will render it useless. We examine the eyeball and its millions of parts. And then we go on believing and teaching that it all somehow just fell into place, in spite of rapidly mounting evidence that there's absolutely no chance it could do any such thing. That's zealotry, too.

Dan

Patently false, there, but you never actually studied upper level Biology did you...

And if you set out to design one, you couldn't have done it more poorly.

No, we know that over millions of years, a very simple light sensitive spot was able to mutate, with billions of dead-end versions, into something that works for us as an eye.

Not really up to date on the whole field of modern Developmental Biology, are you?

He said "it does me no injury", I could also say it did Jesus (or Billy Graham for that matter) no injury if his next door neighbor believed in no god or 20 gods. That has zero reflection on what Jesus believed in. It does me no injury if my neighbor paints their house pink with purple pokadots, but that doesn't mean I like it or approve of it, it just means that it doesn't injure me. I work with people of different beliefs including atheism and "it does me no injury" for what they believe.

In the New Testament the Apostles went about spreading the Gospel and encountered people that worshipped false Gods, but that in itself did the Apostles no injury. What did Jesus injury were the religious leaders of the day that believed in the same God as he did.

That has nothing to do with the founding of the Constitution but has everything to do with the redefining of the first amendment as is demonstrated today. The ACLU has a lawsuit because there is a veterans memorial cross, an 8ft cross made from pipe, in the Mojave dessert and they want it removed because they claim it violates the "separation of church and state".

Well, there's the thing about all men being _Created_ equal. But today some believe that all men evolved unequal from primates. So, since we are a product of evolution, and it's important that the strongest survive and the weakest die, which races and people are the weakest and should be destroyed?

RogerN

What does Jefferson say (though I'm sure he doesn't know himself as well as modern liberals do)

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian..." To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus Washington, Apr. 21, 1803 "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian..."

Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816

So shall we believe Ed on Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson himself? What about his writings against Christianity? Could it be he was referring to the "corruptions of Christianity" that he wrote about above? If you interpert his writing in light of his other writings, it makes sense that either he was two people or he was for real Christianity but against corrupted Christianity, just as all real Christians are. But I have heard that he was one of the least religious of the founding fathers. Perhaps the reason Jesus isn't mentioned in the Constitution is because they didn't want to hear the leftards grumbling about it. :-)

What makes Jesus different than just another philosopher is that God "signed" his teachings with the "signs and wonders". This is more than a

So, if someone wants to follow Jesus and be able to do the miracles that Jesus did, they could start by giving every part of their life to Jesus. Retreat from the world, pray and fast, seek God with all your being, read Jesus' teachings in the gospels and do what he says. Then go, heal the sick, raise the dead, and preach the good news! The reason we don't see this is because doing this isn't easy.

RogerN

Roger,

Matthew 7:6

You can find as much variation among the children in one family as between people from opposite sides of the planet.

Almost 100% true.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno