Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit gordy327's column >>

GORDY327

Logic is the beginning of Wisdom.
Articles Posted: 2  Links Seeded: 0
Member Since: 10/2008  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Is America a Christian nation? I don't think so!

Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:19 AM EST
politics, america, supreme-court, christianity, constitution, founding-fathers, christian-nation
By gordy327
Advertise | AdChoices

I've come across several Newsvine articles in which the topic of conversation turns into a debate regarding if America is a christian nation or not. As you can probably imagine, the discussions become very charged on both sides of the debate. Many people seem to think America is a christian nation based on the beliefs of the original Pilgrims, or the various beliefs of the Founding Fathers, or even based on a "christian heritage."But to set the record straight, I can safely say that America is definitely NOT a christian nation (nor is it a nation of any other religious denomination). Here's why:

Let's start with the document that establishes the foundation of our laws and system of government, the United States Constitution. Many theists will claim the Constitution is divinely inspired or influenced by the religious beliefs of its authors. Nothing could be further from the truth. The First Amendment of the Constitution makes this abundantly clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Since there are no laws passed by Congress to declare an official religion of the US, then this country is recognized as being legally secular, with a religiously neutral government.

In addition, the fact that the United States is not founded on christianity is bluntly stated in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797: "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 Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Next, let's look at the Founding Fathers themselves. It is common knowledge they had various religious beliefs to varying degrees of devotion. But they also understood the necessity and wisdom of keeping religion and government separate from each others affairs, while at the same time preserving the individual's rights and freedom of religion. James Madison, the father of the US Constitution, had this to say in his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822:

"There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of allreligious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms."

Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of keeping religion and the government separate form each other. Hence, he coined the term separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Thomas Jefferson's letter was also used by the Supreme Court to interpret the First Amendment of the Constitution
to include a "separation of church and state" in their landmark case, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1879), in which the Court deemed Jefferson's interpretation of the First Amendment: "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning. The Court's decision still holds legal precedent today. After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state. "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Regardless of the religious beliefs of Jefferson, Madison, or the other Founding Fathers, they were clearly passionat secularists who believed that the religious beliefs of individuals (especially the President), or lack of them, were entirely their own business. Based on the US Constitution, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution, and the writings of the Founding Fathers, it's safe to conclude that the United States in not now, nor was it ever, a christian nation (or any other religious nation).

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • gordy327's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: The Anti-Moron League
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (776)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
gordy327

I've pointed out that the US is not a christian nation. Please feel free to explain why you agree or disagree. CoH please!

  • 25 votes
#1 - Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 AM EST
Luke Wright

I've pointed out that the US is not a christian nation. Please feel free to explain why you agree or disagree

When over 80% of your citizens are Christians then I would say that you are a "Christian nation"...

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:43 PM EDT
RAC 0129

Since there are not even 80% of US citizens who say they are Christians, that wouldn't be the the USA then.

Still wouldn't make it a Christian nation. It is a nation with the majority of it's population who claim to be Christian. We have a secular government making the US secular.

  • 26 votes
#1.2 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:12 PM EDT
Simplistic Reality

The majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively. Non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population. Another 15% of the adult population identifies as having no religious belief or no religious affiliation.

So a the vast majority of American's.. over 2/3rds are Christians.. making this a Christian nation as a whole even to this day.

  • 9 votes
#1.3 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:34 PM EDT
MWeaver

Simplistic Reality

No doubt. And if you would change the language from "Christian Nation" to "Nation with a Christian Majority" I would cringe less.

  • 29 votes
#1.4 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:27 PM EDT
beej mcl

so we all want to claim that the laws we have today have their origin coming from the ten commandments and the books of law in the old testament.

ok, let that point stand and all it does is prove that we are not a christian nation but in actuality a jewish nation.

as a christian you are not subject to the laws of the old testament for your salvation and therefore have no real need of those laws. the christ himself told his followers that the old laws were not to his liking, for instance the old eye for an eye thing. he told his followers not to seek the eye for an eye thing and to turn the other cheek. if this nation were to actually be a christian nation, one that follows the teaching of he who they claim, there would not be a death penalty. that law is contrary to the teaching of christ and would be totally contrary to what a christian nation would stand for.

we are supposed to be a free nation where all may worship as they please. the nation is not a christian nation just because the majority call themselves christian. baptists as a rule don't consider catholics christian, they consider them as cultists. the opposite is true as well, as the catholics look at most protestants in the same manner.

according to many here on the vine who profess to be christians, just because someone professes to be christian that doesn't make him one. their example of course, lately would be Anders Behring Breivik. agreed, what he did was not a christian thing to do (ignoring the crusades of course), but he too professes to be a christian.

how many of that 76% who claim to be christians actually act and live the way christ told them they ought to. until this nation starts acting like a christian nation with acceptance for all, it should not be dirtying the name of their saviour.

jesus would have been ashamed of how his followers act in this day and age. he would forgive you, but at the same time be ashamed of what you have become.

  • 19 votes
#1.5 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:23 AM EDT
JEN-357892

I must tell you I was surprised when I read this this morning as it was on my mind! I was thinking about how little the practices of the Right are in line with my understanding of who I am as a Christian. Though we do practice the teachings of the entire Bible, the behaviors of Jesus while here is the best way for me to describe my understanding of how we are to be toward one another. So based on that, like Jesus, we would not defend or favor the rich over the poor. We would share whatever we can with those who have less and we would not kill each other in wars or death penalties. The biggie for me? We would not be able to lie as politicians against others so easily even under the cover of 'spin.' I am not saying we can not see something differently but if you say something that is really a lie and YOU know it, then you would be convicted to correct it knowing you had sinned. These and other acts all tell me that the name of Christians is exploited and used for political gains but it also shows me that those who say they are Christians, politicians and non politicians alike, are deceiving many. The word of God tells us we would be able to recognize one another by the fruits of our spirits (listed in Matthew). I think there are a lot of folks on TV who claim Christ but fdo not know Him. He warns us about them saying they will do many things in His name but not of Him.

I think people may be confusing your question as to our foundation or practices now. I am a Christian and I would say we were not founded on Christian principles, do not practice Christian principles as a whole today and the Republicans abuse the of name God for their benefit.

If asked to pick one politician who I believe really is a Christian? I would choose President Obama. I do not think he is perfect but I also have noted when he is questioned on his contradictions, he owns them. For example, not voting on the debt ceiling as a Sernator? He says he was young and stupid. I can accept that. We all grow. Again, he is not a god or my god or perfect, but I do believe him and my spirit does agree with him and that is more than I can say for any of the rest no matter the party. I have no doubt this man's intentions are for the better of ALL and not just his party. I would also say the hatred for him is so strong because that is normal with true believers...we are ridiculed to no end.

  • 13 votes
#1.6 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:11 AM EDT
Marquis de Laffayette

we are supposed to be a free nation where all may worship as they please. the nation is not a christian nation just because the majority call themselves christian. baptists as a rule don't consider catholics christian, they consider them as cultists. the opposite is true as well, as the catholics look at most protestants in the same manner.

I've noticed that as well. They should also change their numbers to reflect only those who are "true Christians." But that would hurt the majority argument, so let's just let them change their definition of Christian whenever it's convenient.

according to many here on the vine who profess to be christians, just because someone professes to be christian that doesn't make him one. their example of course, lately would be Anders Behring Breivik. agreed, what he did was not a christian thing to do (ignoring the crusades of course), but he too professes to be a christian.

how many of that 76% who claim to be christians actually act and live the way christ told them they ought to. until this nation starts acting like a christian nation with acceptance for all, it should not be dirtying the name of their saviour.

I should probably read the full comment before giving my opinion. I completely agree with the point you're making.

  • 7 votes
#1.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:47 AM EDT
Don Overton

Simplistic reality, PJK1020

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#attend

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/mass-exodus-staggering-numbers-of-americas-young-people-are-rejecting-the-christian-faith

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/03/the-end-of-christian-america.html

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2009/03/10/the-end-of-christianity-in-america/

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:20 PM EDT
ambivalent

That would be the Judeo/Christian God of the Old and New Testaments, not necessarily Christian.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:32 PM EDT
GendoIkari

It is a nation with the majority of it's population who claim to be Christian.

Claim being the key word there.

If this were truly a Christian Nation, there would be no homeless, no starving, no wars, no worshiping of money, no class warfare, no hatred of other groups, etc.

Jesus Christ would be greatly saddened by what he sees going on in America.

  • 15 votes
#1.10 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:41 AM EDT
Proud Pagan

... there would be no homeless, no starving, no wars, no worshiping of money, no class warfare, no hatred of other groups, etc.

Just Another Day in Paradise.

Regards

  • 13 votes
#1.11 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:11 PM EDT
GendoIkari

Good pick.

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:38 PM EDT
Proud Pagan

Thank you. It is one of my favorites. :-)

Pax vobiscum

  • 6 votes
#1.13 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 12:06 PM EDT
gordy327

When over 80% of your citizens are Christians then I would say that you are a "Christian nation"...

An argumentum ad populum. Even if 100% of citizens were christian, we still would not be a "christian nation. We are a secular nation which happens to have many christians in it.

  • 23 votes
#1.14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:24 PM EDT
Clara Listensprechen

Luke Wright's canard, about how if 80% of a nation is Christian, it's a Christian nation, is just that--a canard. The question is how this country was founded, not a question of demographics. It's also a question about theocraticizing our laws as well, and not a question about demographics. Sorry to see Simplistic and other believers taking that demographic bate and going off topic.

Bottom line is that none of our laws were supposed to be theocratic, but under 9th and 10th Amendments, some state and local laws were just that, unfortunately.

JEN--your shock isn't genuine although I'm sure you believe it is. Look around you at the bazillion different denominations of Christianity, and examine why some of them decry other denominations as "anti-christ". There's no surprise if you but look around you.

  • 6 votes
#1.15 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:11 PM EST
Clara Listensprechen

PS--in another article, I was asked if I thought it was the case that atheists and believers can't work with each other. It's worthwhile to observe in THIS thread that not only do religionists find it impossible to work with atheists, but also find it impossible to work with each other. That's what the Salem Witch Trials was all about (Christian vs fellow Christian) and what's turning out to be the case when Romney's Mormonism is brought up into political discussion at all.

Religionists as a rule can't work with anybody outside their tribe.

  • 12 votes
#1.16 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:18 PM EST
gordy327

Religionists as a rule can't work with anybody outside their tribe.

And certainly not within the confines of the government where they are supposed to represent all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.

  • 15 votes
#1.17 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:59 PM EST
Clara Listensprechen

Very very very true.

  • 3 votes
#1.18 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:01 PM EST
A radicial idea

In this Christian nation thankfully there is enough space for one lowly atheist.

  • 10 votes
#1.19 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:16 AM EST
Clara Listensprechen

Christians at large don't hold that view, sorry. Wishful thinking on your part, and Christians are still blowing serious taxpayer money and writing theocratic laws and injecting religious crap in public schools like they're Christian madrasas. FAIL

  • 8 votes
#1.20 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:47 AM EST
gordy327

In this Christian nation thankfully there is enough space for one lowly atheist.

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but this is certainly not a christian nation. I defy you to prove otherwise!

  • 7 votes
#1.21 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:25 PM EST
A radicial idea

Sarcasm sir I forgot to tag it.
I celebrate the wall between church and state thank god for the Danbury Baptist and the Danbury Congregationalist. The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote explains why this is not a christian nation. This is one of the few places in the world that I do not have to submit to a religious tyranny. As a lowly atheist I really love this about my country. I am free to believe what I choose and I choose to have no belief.

  • 6 votes
#1.22 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:45 PM EST
USAF Vet-923294

The facts stand that those making the laws ARE influenced by their moral belief's. Considering that the majority is overwhelmingly Christian, says that the laws of this land are found by the majority which happens to be Christians (there have been numerous studies on this by Political Professors, that I know personally).

Refusing to recognize history and the historical implications of religion on our country does not change that history, it just makes you ignorant of the facts.

The basis of the "no establishment clause" in the constitution is based on the problems encountered by our founding fathers who saw what happened with the Church of England and those kingdoms dedicated and lead by the Catholic Church.

It is simple history and you should look it up!

The treaty of Tripoli was to stop the Muslims from attacking our merchant ships and forcing them to convert. Look up Barbary Privates and read all about it. You will be surprised to see that Muslim Nations have been messing with the USA since we first became a country!!

  • 2 votes
#1.23 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:50 AM EST
gordy327

The facts stand that those making the laws ARE influenced by their moral belief's.

Any laws passed regardless of moral beliefs, must pass constitutional muster, especially the Lemon Test established by the SCOTUS. Your statement is based on a coorelation implying causation fallacy.

(there have been numerous studies on this by Political Professors, that I know personally).

Am I supposed to be impressed? Their "studies" doesn't change the actual facts outlined!

Considering that the majority is overwhelmingly Christian, says that the laws of this land are found by the majority which happens to be Christians

Nice leap of logic, but wrong! See my first statement above. Just because a law is passed by christians, doesn't make it a "christian law."

Refusing to recognize history and the historical implications of religion on our country does not change that history, it just makes you ignorant of the facts.

I, along with others here, have posted verifiable historical facts and reeferences. Refusing to acknowledge them in favor of your own agenda or beliefs, is dishonest, disingenuous, and makes you look foolish!

The basis of the "no establishment clause" in the constitution is based on the problems encountered by our founding fathers who saw what happened with the Church of England and those kingdoms dedicated and lead by the Catholic Church.

You have a rather myopic view of the constitution and you contradict your previous statements. No religion can be established or validated over others by the government. Passing laws based on any particular religion (as you claim laws are mostly christian based) would be in violation of the establishment clause and violate the separation of church and state.

It is simple history and you should look it up!

I am familiar with history and I gave you a history lesson!

The treaty of Tripoli was to stop the Muslims from attacking our merchant ships and forcing them to convert.

As a treaty, it also has legal effect and constitutional weight. It also single handedly dispels the myth, in black and white, that America is a christian nation!

Sarcasm sir I forgot to tag it.

No worries.

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote explains why this is not a christian nation.

Madison and Adams also explained that fact rather well too.

As a lowly atheist I really love this about my country. I am free to believe what I choose and I choose to have no belief.

Ditto!

  • 12 votes
#1.24 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:13 AM EST
Proud Pagan

The facts stand that those making the laws ARE influenced by their moral belief's. Considering that the majority is overwhelmingly Christian, says that the laws of this land are found by the majority which happens to be Christians

Well then, there can be no denying that the U.S. is a white nation for the very same reasons you mention here. Being white certainly influences a man's beliefs, RIGHT? So the laws of this nation are white laws. The connotation, of course, is that non-whites are less significant.

And affluent! Those who make the laws are rich, and certainly being rich influences a man's beliefs, etc., etc.

In fact, along with rich, white, and Christian, why don't we just include blonde-haired and blue-eyed for a more complete picture, eh?

(there have been numerous studies on this by Political Professors, that I know personally).

Feel free to reference their scholarly works. Otherwise, you're just talking.

Refusing to recognize history and the historical implications of religion on our country does not change that history, it just makes you ignorant of the facts.

  • History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
    -- Thomas Jefferson

The basis of the "no establishment clause" in the constitution is based on the problems encountered by our founding fathers who saw what happened with the Church of England and those kingdoms dedicated and lead by the Catholic Church.

  • Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "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." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
    --
    James Madison

The "no establishment clause" was based on man's unalienable rights. Period.

It is simple history and you should look it up!

I did. You were wrong. But by all means, quote something that supports your claims.

The treaty of Tripoli was to stop the Muslims from attacking our merchant ships and forcing them to convert.

Nonetheless, it clearly states the United States is not a Christian Nation. It was approved unanimously by the Congress. Now, are you saying every member of Congress AND John Adams were wrong? Or are you saying they were all liars?

Look up Barbary Privates and read all about it.

I have.

You will be surprised to see that Muslim Nations have been messing with the USA since we first became a country!!

And you would be surprised to learn that Muslims have lived in this country since before the Declaration of Independence was written. Muslims fought in the Revolutionary War through which we gained our Independence.

Or did you not know that?

Regards

  • 16 votes
#1.25 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:18 AM EST
gordy327

Bravo Pagan. Well said, as usual. :)

  • 10 votes
#1.26 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:33 AM EST
USAF Vet-923294

Gordy,

Any laws passed regardless of moral beliefs, must pass constitutional muster, especially the Lemon Test established by the SCOTUS. Your statement is based on a coorelation implying causation fallacy.

Yes, they must pass constitutional muster, but to deny that Congressmen and Congresswomen won't be influenced by their beliefs is to deny any and all logic! We all have beliefs, even atheist have beliefs! If they didn't, they wouldn't even turn on the lights, because they would not believe electricity worked!!!

Using the idea of causal fallacy to deny this is like saying that an explosion caused from an lite fuse is a causal fallacy. Obviously, the the explosion would not happen if the fuse was not lite. There are people much smarter then you that have written whole doctoral thesis on how Religion has effected and shaped the Untied States!

Remember, Utah was founded by a religious group! Or do you even deny that?

AGAIN, look it up.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Their "studies" doesn't change the actual facts outlined!

Of course you aren't supposed to be impressed. You just are expected not to be stupid in your claims or in your argument AND LOOK IT UP if you don't believe what I said. I also expect you not to use inductive fallacies have you have.

Nice leap of logic, but wrong! See my first statement above. Just because a law is passed by christians, doesn't make it a "christian law."

Well, of course not! I expected you to be smart enough not to jump to conclusion. If you can't figure that statement out, maybe I was wrong.

I, along with others here, have posted verifiable historical facts and reeferences. Refusing to acknowledge them in favor of your own agenda or beliefs, is dishonest, disingenuous, and makes you look foolish!

Oh please! Cherry picking your facts does not make your conclusion fact. It just means you have over looked ALL of the facts as a whole and refused to acknowledge the part religion played.

You have a rather myopic view of the constitution and you contradict your previous statements. No religion can be established or validated over others by the government. Passing laws based on any particular religion (as you claim laws are mostly christian based) would be in violation of the establishment clause and violate the separation of church and state.

Seriously? Did you read what you wrote before you posted it? Did you read what I wrote? There isn't any contradictions in what I wrote. If you found one, you jumped to conclusions that were not there.

Influencing something is not the same as basing on something!! Big jump you made there and not very logical at all.

It doesn't contradict anything I said and to state that it does just shows that you lack understand of the word "influence."

I, along with others here, have posted verifiable historical facts and reeferences. Refusing to acknowledge them in favor of your own agenda or beliefs, is dishonest, disingenuous, and makes you look foolish!

Again, cherry picking your facts to fit an agenda do not make them right. You have to take them in context and as a whole! Cherry picking them only makes you look "dishonest, disingenuous and foolish."

I am familiar with history and I gave you a history lesson!

Really? Guess what my 2 degrees are in. Teach me if you want, but teach me what I don't know!!

As a treaty, it also has legal effect and constitutional weight. It also single handedly dispels the myth, in black and white, that America is a christian nation!

It does have a legal effect and constitutional weight, but it doesn't prove anything more! What it does prove is that Washington (as he stated himself) had no standing army to do anything about the situation.

People are free to believe what they want to. Still, to deny that Religion did not have an impact on our nation or influence our nation is just plain ignorance!!

  • 2 votes
#1.27 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:01 AM EST
USAF Vet-923294

And I'm done with your articles. You say you want to discuss the issue, but you berate those who disagree and confront them with malice rather then discuss the issue. That does not make you right, it only makes you pushy ("pushy" was the closest word I can use without breaking the CoH).

    #1.28 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:04 AM EST
    gordy327

    but to deny that Congressmen and Congresswomen won't be influenced by their beliefs is to deny any and all logic!

    Then you've missed the point entirely. Regardless of their beliefs, they are accountable to the constitution and its standards.

    ! If they didn't, they wouldn't even turn on the lights, because they would not believe electricity worked!!!

    I don't need to believe the lights will come on like magic. I understand the electrical engineering principles of how electricity flows through a circuit to power a lightbulb. It's high school engineering. Plus that is a ludicrous statement.

    There are people much smarter then you that have written whole doctoral thesis on how Religion has effected and shaped the Untied States!

    And not one religious ideology is in or was used to shape or draft the constitution!

    Remember, Utah was founded by a religious group! Or do you even deny that?

    Utah was founded before the Mormons relocated there. It was settled by pioneers travelling westward and was orininally part of Mexico as the Alta California, until the end of the Mexican-American War. The first mormon settlers didn't arrive until the1840's. But they didn't discover of found the state of Utah! I see your knowledge of history is as lacking as your knowledge of civics.

    You just are expected not to be stupid in your claims or in your argument AND LOOK IT UP if you don't believe what I said.

    How about you LOOK UP my references, which prove my point and argument, if you don't believe me. Or look up Proud Pagan's references too. While you're at it, why don't you address some of the challenges I and Proud Pagan laid out? Until you do, as Pagan pointed out, you're just talkling.

    Well, of course not! I expected you to be smart enough not to jump to conclusion. If you can't figure that statement out, maybe I was wrong.

    You ARE wrong, on so many levels too! Let's put it this way: if a Ford Focus is built by the most pious of christians, does that make the Ford Focus a "christian car?"

    Cherry picking your facts does not make your conclusion fact. It just means you have over looked ALL of the facts as a whole and refused to acknowledge the part religion played.

    Obviously, you haven't bothered looking at my, or others, facts, and instead prefer to use your own opinions or questionable interpretations of history as fact.

    Did you read what I wrote? There isn't any contradictions in what I wrote.

    I did, and I pointed it out. Maybe you should reread what you wrote.

    Influencing something is not the same as basing on something!!

    Saying they were "influenced" is speculative at best. From John Adams, (with thanks to Proud Pagan for the reference) in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," (emphasis mine, with credit to fellow NV'r Proud Pagan for the reference)

    It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

    Oh, but this is no mere mention, no random thought; he goes on:

    As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.

    And he continues to emphasize his point:

    Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

    Here, John Adams is speaking clearly and specifically to the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution and the law was written.

    Again, cherry picking your facts to fit an agenda do not make them right. You have to take them in context and as a whole! Cherry picking them only makes you look "dishonest, disingenuous and foolish."

    I, along with Proud Pagan, presented the facts to you. You simply choose to ignore them and prefer speculation and opinion over them. Who's being dishonest now?

    Really? Guess what my 2 degrees are in.

    Again, am I supposed to be impressed?

    Teach me if you want, but teach me what I don't know!!

    I just did!

    It does have a legal effect and constitutional weight, but it doesn't prove anything more!

    It doesn't really need anything more. The fact that it has constitutional weight is enough. It's established law!

    And I'm done with your articles.

    Typical response. You're proven wrong on nearly every point (and not just by me), so you whine and storm off. You only show your lack of credbility and the inherent weakness of your arguments.

    but you berate those who disagree and confront them with malice rather then discuss the issue.

    Point out where I berated you or violated the CoH!

    That does not make you right, it only makes you pushy ("pushy" was the closest word I can use without breaking the CoH).

    My cited facts and references make me right and prove you wrong!

    • 12 votes
    #1.29 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:23 AM EST
    stally

    Many of us are born with an innate sense of morality. It's called empathy. Those that aren't have some sort of Antisocial Personality Disorder. The people that claim they need religion for morality are admitting to this condition. That's one of the reasons religion was invented to give those that weren't born with an internal sense of morality a guide book so they could function in society. The truth is our morality is defined internally not by a book or religion.

    So to be clear.

    "You need religion for morality"

    Translation: I am a psychopath.

    • 13 votes
    #1.30 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:37 AM EST
    WaltUU

    Truly, the Golden Rule is well-founded on this foundation. The problem is that, as you alluded to, many people seem incapable (or perhaps simply unwilling) to place themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of others. "I've got mine, so why care about anyone else?"

    • 12 votes
    #1.31 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:49 AM EST
    stally

    Truly, the Golden Rule is well-founded on this foundation.

    The Golden Rule is very inconvienient to Christianity. Once someone truly understands it then all other laws fall in place. There really isn't a need to go to Church once you understand the principle and that's not very profitable for the Church which has to feed it's beast.

    • 11 votes
    #1.32 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:03 AM EST
    gordy327

    Stally and Walt, well said! You both make good points.

    • 8 votes
    #1.33 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:42 PM EST
    Clara Listensprechen

    The facts stand that those making the laws ARE influenced by their moral belief's. Considering that the majority is overwhelmingly Christian, says that the laws of this land are found by the majority which happens to be Christians (there have been numerous studies on this by Political Professors, that I know personally).

    Refusing to recognize history and the historical implications of religion on our country does not change that history, it just makes you ignorant of the facts.

    Good point., USAFvet The national persecution of the Mormons was unconstitutional; persecution of Muslims is unconstitutional; the application of a religious test by political evangelicals to candidates is unconstitutional but that doesn't stop any of these sorry people from violating the Constitution, does it.

    However, your point skates over the FOUNDING part of this article. This nation still was NOT founded to be this way. The religionists behaving this way are actually ant-American (anti-Constitution). They're closet Tories who want a theocracy like the UK's. It's a constitutional theocracy but it's a theocracy nonetheless. They might as well pretend that the American Revolution never happened.

    • 12 votes
    #1.34 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:37 PM EST
    Grisham

    When over 80% of your citizens are Christians then I would say that you are a "Christian nation"...

    So if 80% of your citizens believed in unicorns, would you be a Unicornian Nation?

    • 17 votes
    #1.35 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:09 AM EST
    ana78041

    Ok, I've quoted this before and I'll quote it again. It is a statement on morality without a god and supports the fact that the laws in this nation were not based on Christian views.

    Q: How can anyone possibly be moral without believing in God?

    A: Pretty much the same way that anyone else can be moral: by considering their actions, weighing the consequences, and deciding whether they are doing more harm than good to themselves and other people.

    Despite what evangelists tell you, the threat of hell is not what stops most people from, say, going on a mass-murdering spree. Even if there was no hell, there are still bad consequences for bad behavior. Our society has laws that threaten criminals with fines, imprisonment and sometimes death. And even if those laws didn't exist, there would still be the threat of punishment from other sources. For instance, if you commit a murder, the victim's family and friends might come looking for revenge. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. The justice system just makes the whole process a little more orderly, which is a good thing.

    However, it seems like the threat of punishment and the promise of rewards is not really the only thing that keeps people from being bad. With or without religion, people don't like to be hurt, and they usually recognize that other people getting hurt is a similarly undesirable thing. Jesus didn't invent the principle of treating others the way you would like to be treated; it was around for centuries before. When people are in danger of being mistreated, they seek out protection through cooperation and relationships. Society is simply a much larger extension of those relationships.

    With rare exceptions, people (atheists included) don't really have the urge or desire to run out and kill or steal or otherwise harm other people. And honestly, when people say "If it weren't for God holding me back, there would be nothing to stop me from being a criminal", we worry about them. If your grasp of right and wrong is so shaky that you can't stop yourself from doing bad things, and you need someone threatening you with eternal punishment to keep you in line, then we wonder how safe you really are to be near.

    Further reading:

    • The Human Basis Of Laws And Ethics

    /site: http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#moral_without_god

    • 9 votes
    #1.36 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:07 AM EST
    John Bayner

    My cited facts and references make me right and prove you wrong!

    Opinions are not facts, this is not a Christian nation this is the United States of America

    • 6 votes
    #1.37 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:12 PM EST
    John Bayner

    newsvine error

    • 2 votes
    #1.38 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:12 PM EST
    Pablo-123

    Religionists as a rule can't work with anybody outside their tribe.

    My jesus can beat up your jesus.

      #1.39 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:39 PM EDT
      Pablo-123

      Th religiots who assert that this is a christian nation conveniently forget that the one thing that set America apart from the entire western world at the time of America's creation is that we WERE NOT a religious nation.

      Every other major western power in the world at that time had either a state religion, or a devine theocratic monarchy.

      Spain, France, Germany, England, Italy all had a divinely empowered monarch at a minimum, or a state mandated religion.

      The founding fathers forever changed human history by NOT HAVING A STATE RELIGION. They actually went as far as forbidding a state endorsed religion. Something that until that point had been unheard of in modern history. The founding fathers rejected divine rule (based on religion) and empowered the people to govern themselves. It was the most important moment in human history.

      Looking at the creation of this country objectively, you can clearly and easily see that it is in fact built on the EXACT OPPOSITE OF CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

      The US was built on the sole idea of individual personal liberty. The right to believe and express exactly what you want to. The belief in the right of each and every individual to believe in whatever particular religion or philosophy you decide too. Don't believe jesus was the son of god? Fine, that is your inalienable individual right.

      Christian doctrine does not allow for free thought, belief or free speech. You do not go to church to debate about the divinity of the bible. The bible is the accepted word of god. If you don't believe and accept that, you are going to hell.

      No questions or arguments about that.

      You do not go to church and challenge the validity of the assertion that Jesus was the savior. Jesus was the savior, period. It was not Muhammad, or Moses, the flying spaghetti monster or McSpanky the farting leprechaun. You do not have open debates about whether or not Jesus is the son of god and savior sent here for your sins. You blindly accept christian doctrine, or spend eternity in a big lake full of lava.

      No free though allowed.

      Christianity REQUIRES THAT YOU ACCEPT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE WITHOUT QUESTION. Otherwise you go to hell. There is no free thought. There is no debate. There is no freedom of expression.

      The founding fathers saw the danger in this. They wrote extensively about it. It is the reason that there are so many churches, mosques, temples and congregations here in America who get to worship any way they chose.

      The reason that you get to go to church to worship the way you decide to is because the founding fathers did something remarkable for that time in history.

      They created a nation where belief was left to the individual.

      This is not, was not, and never ever will be a christian nation.

      • 2 votes
      #1.40 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:01 PM EDT
      Reply
      rydinan

      Great article Gordy! Very concise and enjoyable to read.

      I fully expect however, that any rebuttals to this information will rely on the typical statements, such as how the "majority of the founding fathers were Christian", or how "separation of church and state still isn't written, word for word, in the constitution". Or they will ask "if we're not a Christian nation, then why are the 10 commandments in our courts?" (we both know they're not, but I'm just sayin'). Or, "Why is there a bible in every hotel room?" "Why does our money have "In God We Trust" on it?"

      It will be things like this that will just be enough to convince the sheep what they want to believe.

      • 14 votes
      Reply#2 - Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:32 PM EST
      gordy327

      Great article Gordy! Very concise and enjoyable to read.

      Thank you rydinan. That means a lot. This is my first article and I hope many people people will read it and enjoy it too or at least find it educational. Feel free to post links to it >wink wink< lol :)

      I fully expect however, that any rebuttals to this information will rely on the typical statements, such as how the "majority of the founding fathers were Christian", or how "separation of church and state still isn't written, word for word, in the constitution".

      As do I. In fact, it's those same excuses (or variations of them) I've seen over and over again is what inspired me to write this article and set the historical record straight and hopefully educate. Of course, I have you, Proud Pagan, cutiencrzy, and others on my friends list who have submitted their own researched information on various posts over time, providing a wealth of information, some of which I incorporated in my article. Thank you and thanks to all!

      It will be things like this that will just be enough to convince the sheep what they want to believe.

      Unfortunately, some people might be so set in the infallability of their beliefs that they will refuse any argument or evidence to the contrary.

      • 11 votes
      #2.1 - Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:55 PM EST
      K189W

      we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal(that would be in the eyes of God) and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inaileanable rights ( in order for rights to be inaileanably they have to come from someone more powerful than man IF THERE IS NOT A gOD THEN YOU MUST STRIKE THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THESE WORDS OUT OF THE DOCUMENT making all else tripe. if Goddoesnt give us these rights then anyone with more power or more fighting forces or more money has every right to do whatever he can get away with

      • 3 votes
      #2.2 - Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:17 PM EST
      gordy327

      IF THERE IS NOT A gOD THEN YOU MUST STRIKE THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THESE WORDS OUT OF THE DOCUMENT making all else tripe.

      Prove there is a god, otherwise your statement is just tripe.

      • 12 votes
      #2.3 - Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:15 PM EST
      Proud Pagan

      we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal...

      This is correct

      (that would be in the eyes of God)

      This is commentary. Your belief that equality is in the "eyes of God" is purely subjective.

      ...and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inaileanable rights

      Again, correct.

      ( in order for rights to be inaileanably they have to come from someone more powerful than man

      And again, this is subjective commentary. The word "inalienable," in no way implies a granter of rights, only that those rights may not be sold or given away; they are inherent rights.

      IF THERE IS NOT A gOD THEN YOU MUST STRIKE THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THESE WORDS OUT OF THE DOCUMENT making all else tripe.

      Completely false. The Declaration of Independence did not establish rights, nor did it even enumerate rights. It is simplystating the reason(s) for declaring independence from England. You should read the very next line of the same document:

      • That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

      The rights declared do not come from God, they come from governments "instituted among men."

      if Goddoesnt give us these rights then anyone with more power or more fighting forces or more money has every right to do whatever he can get away with

      Again, completely false. Inalienable rights cannot be removed by coercion or force.

      Regards.

      • 15 votes
      #2.4 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:54 PM EST
      gordy327

      Hi Pagan. Good to see you here and thanks for the comment. Another logical analysis from you, as usual. Kudos!

      • 8 votes
      #2.5 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:12 PM EST
      Proud Pagan

      Greetings Gordy,

      You've written a good article, and am happy to contribute what I can. :-)

      Warmest regards

      • 10 votes
      #2.6 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:22 PM EST
      gordy327

      Thanks Pagan. Your contributions are always welcomed and appreciated. I'm surprised it picked up a little bit recently, considering I wrote it back in January. But I'm certainly not complaining. Now I'm wondering what the next topic I write about should be.

      • 9 votes
      #2.7 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:31 PM EST
      Dr Rex Dexter 'DeX'

      As a "Believer", I tend to stay away from espousing said beliefs-if my actions don't speak it for me, what would be the point, anyway? I know hundreds of people right where I'm at, that stake most vociferous claims to their favorite flavor of "Christianity" (dislike the word-I don't FOLLOW 'Chris'-Hi-Ho!...but that would be another topic, anyway.) Most of these folks are self-righteous, gossips, as well as spiritual, intellectual, and philosophical vampires....I.E. LOT's of talk-very little walk. If you read my articles, you'd be surprised at the things I laud. (Like Tyr and Therion, for example, who ARE pagan bands. They are, HOWEVER, very good. If I don't find that hard, what's wrong with the rest? They aren't even the flavor they "advertise"...ergo, we are NOT a "Christian" nation. Hopefully, your friend, 'DeX'

      • 8 votes
      #2.8 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:04 PM EST
      gordy327

      Thank DeX, good comment.

      • 6 votes
      #2.9 - Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:26 PM EST
      Clara Listensprechen

      Calling out K189W's citation of the Declaration of Independence as a canard. That was directed at a king who was also head of an established state religion (Anglican) and according to Romans 13, an act against God's representative on Earth.

      The Declaration didn't establish a nation of what then were several (separate independent) states, it established a rebellion. Between the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution were the Articles of Confederation, which was the first attempt to establish a nation...and deemed to be a failure and thus gave rise to the U.S. Constitution.

      If there's no establishment of Christianity in either the Articles or the Constitution, you don't have a case.

      • 10 votes
      #2.10 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:31 PM EST
      gordy327

      you don't have a case

      Yet, that never seems to stop some people from trying to make a case about it, even when all the evidence to the contrary is presented.

      • 5 votes
      #2.11 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:49 AM EST
      RAC 0129

      If there's no establishment of Christianity in either the Articles or the Constitution, you don't have a case.

      Great retort for the strict Constituitionalists. "Show me in the Constitution ewhere it says Christianity is the religion of the land."

      • 6 votes
      #2.12 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:40 AM EST
      Clara Listensprechen

      Indeed. The Con Right tout state religion and strict constructionism at the same time. There's just never a strict constructionist around when you need one.

      • 6 votes
      #2.13 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:48 AM EST
      Reply
      Just an Observation-826313

      I would like to add one addendum to your article gordy.

      Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

      Once in a while you will see the "We are a Christian Nation" believers make the assertion that our laws a based on Christian morals.

      • 12 votes
      Reply#3 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:29 AM EST
      gordy327

      Thanks for your input Just an. You are so right.

      • 10 votes
      #3.1 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:39 PM EST
      Reply
      PJK1020

      Laws come from somewhere, Gordy. Where do they come from?

      You have 535 people in Congress who can't agree on health care reform. How is it that nations of people agree that certain things are wrong? If there are different cultures, societies, and laws originate with man, how did man decide that murder, stealing, and lying are wrong?

      If there is no Law that comes from God, why do we consider it wrong to eat other humans, as have cannibalistic tribes done in the past and, in some places, still do?

      Why is it wrong to murder, if laws are made by man, and man decides murder is ok?

      Why is it wrong to steal, if society says that stealing is ok?

      Why is lying wrong?

      Where does the concept of "justice" come from?

      Where does the concept of "mercy" come from?

      If laws originate with man, why do most societies deem a marriage is between one man and one woman? Why would not men and women just have sex without marriage?

      Who decided marriage should be a legally binding contract?

      Why are bribes wrong?

      There is no way that you can put a moral code on people, much less a civil code without something to base it on.

      Where does the moral code of an atheist come from? What about ethical behaviour? Where does an ethical code come from? Does man not have a conscience? Where does conscience come from?

      Your article makes a claim that you fail to support. There is no support for your supposition that America's Christian influence had no bearing on our founding documents. No, our nation was not founded as a Christian nation, but it was founded by Godly men, in some cases, whose beliefs were drawn from in establishing a nation that would be a nation of laws founded on Christian/Judeo beliefs.

      Benjamin Franklin said that "only a virtuous people are free. Corrupt people need many masters."

      • 2 votes
      #4 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:00 AM EST
      rydinan

      Laws come from somewhere, Gordy. Where do they come from?

      Seriously? Look around. Laws differ all over the world. It is quite obvious, that laws are determined and enforced by man. It is that simple.

      You have 535 people in Congress who can't agree on health care reform.

      Health care reform isn't a 'moral' law of conduct, now is it? It's actually quite a bit more complicated and difficult to construct a bill outlining how health care will be applied to millions of different people in our nation, than to understand basic moral behavior, and laws that facilitate those ideals (don't murder, don't steal, etc).

      How is it that nations of people agree that certain things are wrong? If there are different cultures, societies, and laws originate with man, how did man decide that murder, stealing, and lying are wrong?

      Do they all agree on everything? Are the above actions wrong all the time? I'm sure you can imagine a circumstance where each of the above actions would be acceptable. But, overall, murder, stealing (and to a much lesser degree, lying) are almost universally accepted as wrong, because those actions harm the species. This still doesn't prevent us from killing 'legally' (war, self-defense, etc).

      If there is no Law that comes from God, why do we consider it wrong to eat other humans, as have cannibalistic tribes done in the past and, in some places, still do?

      I'm sorry, but where (in the Bible, I presume) does 'God' say it is sinful to eat other humans? I can show you a passage that actually calls for such action.

      "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" (Deuteronomy 28:53)

      "And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." (Deuteronomy 28:57)

      Regardless, why would a law against cannibalism have to come from a god to be considered logical? We consider eating other humans 'wrong', because that would necessitate the death of a fellow human being, which is not something that is desirable. Plus, I hear human tastes rubbery and tough.

      Why is it wrong to murder, if laws are made by man, and man decides murder is ok?

      Like I mentioned above, our current modern culture doesn't consider murder to be 'wrong' in all situations. Killing is generally considered acceptable during war and self-defense. But walking up to a stranger in the street, and caving in his skull with a baseball bat, for no particular reason, is frowned upon because it would negatively affect our species and society.

      Why is it wrong to steal, if society says that stealing is ok?

      The same explanation above applies to this.

      Why is lying wrong?

      The same explanation above applies to this also.

      Where does the concept of "justice" come from?

      From our collective understanding of morality and ethical behavior (ultimately man).

      Where does the concept of "mercy" come from?

      See above.

      If laws originate with man, why do most societies deem a marriage is between one man and one woman?

      Marriage is a term used to outline a legal union between two people - and it varies between countries. The main reason why marriage has been typically associated with 2 (or more with polygamy when it was legal) people of the opposite sex, is because of religious beliefs about the idea - not because god actually said so. Canada allows marriage between same sex couples, as do a few other democratic societies. Clearly, man makes the laws.

      Why would not men and women just have sex without marriage?

      Hello??

      Who decided marriage should be a legally binding contract?

      Man.

      Why are bribes wrong?

      Again, it's not black and white, just like everything else. Bribes are considered wrong, because it is basically robbing someone using sensitive information. It goes back to causing harm to the individual or social group, and ultimate the species as a whole.

      There is no way that you can put a moral code on people, much less a civil code without something to base it on.

      Please! Of course we base it on something! We base it on the success and prosperity of our civilization. When moral behavior is taught and enforced, typically quality of life goes up.

      Where does the moral code of an atheist come from? What about ethical behaviour?

      The same place yours really comes from (man). You just believe it comes from an all-powerful god.

      Where does an ethical code come from? Does man not have a conscience? Where does conscience come from?

      Sigh...

      1) From man.

      2) Yes, most people with functioning brains have a conscience.

      3) From complex chemical and physical interactions from within our brains.

      Your article makes a claim that you fail to support.

      What claim would that be? The title claim has certainly been supported by evidence.

      There is no support for your supposition that America's Christian influence had no bearing on our founding documents.

      The article did not make that claim. Of course religious influences can (and certainly will) affect such things. The point is that our country is not founded on a specific religious belief (Christianity). There may be some similar ground in which they agree (don't kill, don't steal, etc), but those laws did not originate from the Bible! Those were around long before Christianity was on the radar during human history!

      No, our nation was not founded as a Christian nation, but it was founded by Godly men, in some cases, whose beliefs were drawn from in establishing a nation that would be a nation of laws founded on Christian/Judeo beliefs.

      I'll use an analogy that Gordy has used before; Just because a Ford Taurus was made by a group of auto workers that all happened to be Christian, does it make it a Christian car? Can you name a single law in our Constitution that can be shown to be specific to Christianity or Judaism - or any religion for that matter? No! They are universal laws of ethical and moral behavior, in which many religions have accepted and borrowed from.

      Benjamin Franklin said that "only a virtuous people are free. Corrupt people need many masters."

      Yeah? So what is your point?

      • 16 votes
      #4.1 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:11 PM EST
      gordy327

      Laws come from somewhere, Gordy. Where do they come from?

      Yes, our laws come from the Constitution, which itself is based on English common law. The laws of our land do not come from God or the bible.

      If laws originate with man, why do most societies deem a marriage is between one man and one woman?

      There are many societies and countries in the world, both past and present, which allowed or recognizes gay marriage.

      Where does the moral code of an atheist come from? What about ethical behaviour? Where does an ethical code come from? Does man not have a conscience? Where does conscience come from?

      All our laws and code of ethics come from man, as deemed fit for the betterment of society or otherwise determined in a court of law.

      There is no support for your supposition that America's Christian influence had no bearing on our founding documents

      Interesting, considering the Constitution itself is a secular document.

      No, our nation was not founded as a Christian nation,

      Thank you. I'm glad we agree. That was the main point of the article. However, the belifs of the founding fathers does not set the default beliefs of the country in any official capacity.

      but it was founded by Godly men

      The religious beliefs of the founding fathers is not in question. Some were devoutly godly. Others, not so much. But the documents they drafted explaining how best to run a new republic, especially the constitution, does not reflect any religious ideology nor is purposely based around such.

      a nation of laws founded on Christian/Judeo beliefs.

      There are no laws founded specifically based on judeo-christian beliefs. If there were, then they could be construed as unconstitutional. Our laws are universal to our nation and applies to everyone equally.

      I'll use an analogy that Gordy has used before;

      Actually rydinan, I think Proud Pagan came up with that one. But it does fit well here. Thanks for your comment. Very well done!

      • 13 votes
      #4.2 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:53 PM EST
      CF Studios-1512292

      The only worthwhile moral code ever devised by man is The Golden Rule. Everything good in religion is contained in it. Forget all the fairy tales.

      I find great solace in the notion that the universe is totally devoid of meaning...except that which we choose to give it. The freedom to choose to be good to each other is liberating. The idea that some Cosmic Coach is keeping track of an arbitrary set of rules is ludicrous.

      When people ask me, "so if there's no God, then why not just run around robbing and raping? If there's no penalty in the hereafter, why not just do whatever you want?" I ask them, "Is that what you would choose to do if you thought God wouldn't punish you for it?"

      • 16 votes
      #4.3 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:23 PM EST
      CF Studios-1512292

      Define "man" and "woman". Now consider the many people who will fall somewhere between those two definitions. Can they get married, or are they forbidden because of their ambiguous gender?

      Your contention that "most societies" only recognize man-woman marriages is not evidence of anything. Are you going to say that something is true because most people believe it?

      • 8 votes
      #4.4 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:30 PM EST
      CF Studios-1512292

      But, to get back on the thread: no. Thank God this is not a Christian nation!

      • 9 votes
      #4.5 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:40 PM EST
      gordy327

      The only worthwhile moral code ever devised by man is The Golden Rule. Everything good in religion is contained in it. Forget all the fairy tales.

      That sums it up nicely. Well put CF.

      Are you going to say that something is true because most people believe it?

      If most people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing!

      Thank God this is not a Christian nation!

      Indeed!

      • 12 votes
      #4.6 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:51 PM EST
      PJK1020

      Above poster writes: "I'm sorry, but where (in the Bible, I presume) does 'God' say it is sinful to eat other humans? I can show you a passage that actually calls for such action."

      "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" (Deuteronomy 28:53)

      "And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates." (Deuteronomy 28:57)

      __________________________

      The above poster shows his ignorance in any knowledge of the Bible, by using Scripture and interpreting the text so poorly as to suggest he is a child without knowledge.

      The above passages were prophetic of what would occur when the children of Israel turned from serving the true God, to serving idols.

      In fact, Israel fell into idolatry, and just as was prophesied, women did eat their babies - the famine that came upon the land was so severe.

      To the poster: You only show your ignorance of the text when you misuse it so pathetically. A little research would have shown you what the text meant, but you, like other posters who misuse text taken out of context, draw conclusions based on words without reference to context, and, consequently, your inability to integrate ideas, concepts, texts into a framework that allows you to come up with valid conclusions is woefully missing.

      • 3 votes
      #4.7 - Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:18 PM EST
      gordy327

      The above passages were prophetic of what would occur when the children of Israel turned from serving the true God, to serving idols.

      You have yet to prove there's a "true God." On that note, what makes your god the "true God?" There are many religions in the world, some with their own 'god/s,' which are seen as 'true god/s' to their respecive peoples.

      • 9 votes
      #4.8 - Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:35 PM EST
      PJK1020

      Haven't you heard? God who is Spirit, wrapped Himself in flesh and blood, entered space and time, and lived on earth for 33 years.

      He lived a sinless life. He was falsely accused by those jealous of His power and the people following Him, and was sentenced to death on a cross.

      It was all a part of the plan for the redemption of man. In the Old Testament times a sacrificial offering was required to take away the sins of the people. That offering had to be made year in and year out. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus."

      He was the perfect sacrificial offering for the sins of man. God's Justice demanded it. He was beaten with a whip that had leather straps with shards of bone which cut into the flesh, and stones which pelted the skin. "By His stripes we are healed."

      Afterwards, He was nailed to a Roman cross. He died an excruciating death. Upon His death, there was an earthquake and total darkness during the middle of the day. This has been documented to have occurred by sources other than the Bible.

      He was buried the same day, and on the third day, He arose from the grave. Eyewitnesses reported having seen Him for a period of days. Later, eyewitnesses saw Him ascend into heaven where is now seated, and from whence He will come again to judge the world.

      His name is Jesus. He is Lord of Lord and King of Kings, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is God, and He manifested Himself to man, in the flesh, 2000 years ago. He is God, and there is no other.

      • 3 votes
      #4.9 - Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:02 PM EST
      gordy327

      God who is Spirit, wrapped Himself in flesh and blood, entered space and time, and lived on earth for 33 years.

      And this makes sense to you?

      . In the Old Testament times a sacrificial offering was required to take away the sins of the people.

      The idea that God himself would need a blood sacrifice is illogical and macabre.

      This has been documented to have occurred by sources other than the Bible.

      Which doesn't prove those events were correllated to Jesus' death. Darkness during the day is called a solar eclipse. Earthquakes have been occurring since the earth formed. It's called plate techtonics.

      Eyewitnesses reported having seen Him for a period of days.

      And I saw the invisible pink unicorn in my front yard. What's your point?

      Later, eyewitnesses saw Him ascend into heaven where is now seated, and from whence He will come again to judge the world.

      What they really saw was the flying spaghetti monster.

      He is Lord of Lord and King of Kings, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is God, and He manifested Himself to man, in the flesh, 2000 years ago. He is God, and there is no other.

      That's nice. Prove it!

      • 9 votes
      #4.10 - Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:14 PM EST
      Anathema6205

      Eyewitnesses reported having seen Him for a period of days.

      I'd like to throw out there that NO OTHER historical documents from that time, other than the bible, validate that there was indeed, a Jesus that rose from the dead.

      Now think about that; only the people that claim this is fact are the only one with "proof" and "eyewitnesses."

      Don't you think that a man rising from the dead and healing the blind would at least make it into history from other societies' accounts, even from an unbiased perspective?

      Older societies documented EVERYTHING. The Egyptians were notorious for that. Yet, they haven't found any documents from the Egyptians talking about fireballs flying out of the sky.

      Not one document about how the pharaoh, a god in the egyptians eyes, let all of the slaves go. Don't you think they would record that?

      • 7 votes
      #4.11 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:55 PM EDT
      gordy327

      I'd like to throw out there that NO OTHER historical documents from that time, other than the bible, validate that there was indeed, a Jesus that rose from the dead.

      Indeed! The bible, as a factual text, as well as the "eyewitness accounts" is highly dubious and anecdotal evidence at best. Hardly a valid basis with which to make such an outrageous claim.

      Don't you think that a man rising from the dead and healing the blind would at least make it into history from other societies' accounts, even from an unbiased perspective?

      That would seem like abig deal to me. And yet, there's nothing, not to mention people have ben waiting 2000 years for his "return." I wonder what the holdup is?

      Not one document about how the pharaoh, a god in the egyptians eyes, let all of the slaves go. Don't you think they would record that?

      Maybe an oversight? lol

      • 8 votes
      #4.12 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:41 PM EDT
      CL1

      I agree with the premise of your article, gordy327. When the American Republic was launched, the Founders, eager to depart from British traditions and the "Divine Right of Kings," and hoping to bring Americans a changed system that would bring them closer to their own cultural ancestries and political beliefs. Influences from the Protestant Reformation and the ensuing individualism resulting in a stronger middle class as seen in the fifteen and sixteenth century Europe might have influenced their visions for America with continued separation of church and state.

      • 6 votes
      #4.13 - Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:41 AM EDT
      gordy327

      I agree with the premise of your article, gordy327

      Thank you. :)

      And good comment too!

      • 1 vote
      #4.14 - Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:21 AM EDT
      Steve-564412

      rydinan,

      If you'll read from Deut. 28:15 onward, you'll see that Moses was listing the horrible things that would happen to the Hebrews (and in some cases, that they would do themselves) if they persisted in disobedience to God. Verse 53 was not a command to indulge in cannibalism.

        #4.15 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:14 AM EDT
        ryan-244815

        Dear God,

        Please protect me from your followers!

        Thanks!

        [/s]

        • 9 votes
        #4.16 - Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:06 AM EDT
        JVSimp

        gordy327,

        To you and all the non-believers go ahead try and tell me Noah's dingy didn't hold 2 of every animal with the 1000+ tons of food and water they would need for 40 days and 40 nights.

        Oh yeah I don't believe that. False alarm, move along, move along.

        • 5 votes
        #4.17 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:15 AM EST
        andilltellyaanotherthing

        How dare you not believe that every species of animal didn't live within walking distance of Noah's house, how dare you!

        • 7 votes
        #4.18 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:40 AM EST
        Marquis de Laffayette

        To you and all the non-believers go ahead try and tell me Noah's dingy didn't hold 2 of every animal with the 1000+ tons of food and water they would need for 40 days and 40 nights.

        And that's just how long it rained for. Doesn't the Bible say he stayed on the boat for a year?

        • 8 votes
        #4.19 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:38 PM EST
        Clara Listensprechen

        For stories about Noah, go to the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized. And then look into those stories from which Epic of Gilgamesh was plagiarized. Your mileage may vary.

        • 7 votes
        #4.20 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:56 PM EST
        katrix

        At least the people who follow Gilgamesh admit it was a localized river flood that was embellished into something more, as so many myths are.

        • 6 votes
        #4.21 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:45 PM EST
        gordy327

        To you and all the non-believers go ahead try and tell me Noah's dingy didn't hold 2 of every animal with the 1000+ tons of food and water they would need for 40 days and 40 nights.

        Ok: Noah's dingy didn't hold 2 of every animal with the 1000+ tons of food and water they would need for 40 days and 40 nights. There, happy? LOL

        False alarm, move along, move along.

        Better a false alarm than a real emergency I always say.

        At least the people who follow Gilgamesh admit it was a localized river flood that was embellished into something more, as so many myths are.

        If you're going to copy someone's myth, you need to 'spice' it up a bit before you present it as your own. :)

        • 6 votes
        #4.22 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:29 PM EST
        katrix

        Yeah, that's a good point, gordy. No point in covering someone else's song if it's going to sound exactly the same.

        Good to see you, we were all a little worried about you - wondering if you had been turned into ketchup.

        • 7 votes
        #4.23 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:44 PM EST
        gordy327

        Good to see you, we were all a little worried about you - wondering if you had been turned into ketchup.

        No worries. I've just been on a little tomato binge lately, lol

        • 3 votes
        #4.24 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:05 PM EST
        ProFactDeleted
        gordy327

        Great Article Gordy 327 and very well written.

        Thank you.

        It has always been found by my experience that Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, logically.

        I see doubt as a way to bring logic or its conclusions under closer scrutiny along the path to wisdom. The end result is the same however.

        Jefferson said it first but Madison did too…

        Indeed they did and I refer to their writings frequently in discussions such as this.

        • 3 votes
        #4.26 - Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:21 AM EDT
        Reply
        Just an Observation-826313

        Where does the moral code of an atheist come from?

        This one question will make or break your whole argument. There are only two possible answers to this question.

        1) Atheists have no morals.

        2) Atheists have morals therefore a belief in a god(s) is not a requisite for morals to exist.

        Two qutoes from Thomas Jefferson:

        Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

        -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

        If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

        -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

        • 8 votes
        Reply#5 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:26 AM EST
        A radicial idea

        The golden rule is not a christian idea. It was first attributed to Confucius.

        This one question will make or break your whole argument. There are only two possible answers to this question.

        1) Atheists have no morals.

        2) Atheists have morals therefore a belief in a god(s) is not a requisite for morals to exist.

        Morality is innate you are born with a conscious. This is a complex set of chemical reactions. Some, the psychopath and sociopath are not born with it fortunately they are few. I will repeat Christopher Hitchens' challenge:

        Name me one ethical or good act I as an atheist cannot do and conversely name one terrible evil act done in the name of religion.

        • 5 votes
        #5.1 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:36 PM EST
        stally

        Morality is innate you are born with a conscious. This is a complex set of chemical reactions. Some, the psychopath and sociopath are not born with it fortunately they are few. I will repeat Christopher Hitchens' challenge:

        I replied to a similar statement and said the same thing. The bottom line is this.

        "You need religion for morals" Translates to "I am a psychopath."

        • 6 votes
        #5.2 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:49 PM EST
        Clara Listensprechen

        Exactly. Not to mention sociopath.

        • 6 votes
        #5.3 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:40 PM EST
        Reply
        PJK1020

        Just an observation,

        What is the moral code of an atheist? Do all atheists have the same moral code? How is it possible that any two atheists can agree on what is right or wrong, much less any number of atheists agreeing?

        If every atheist is a law unto himself, then there is total anarchy in society. Every man doing what is right in his own eyes, produces chaos.

        As to your Thomas Jefferson quotes: Forget it. You can take one statement from a person, out of context and use it to validate a point that you are trying to make, when, in fact, the statement was said with completely different intent. Those on these boards misunderstand statement made all the time. YET, you think that you can take a two hundred and thirty year old statement and know exactly what it means without taking into consideration anything other than a sentence or two copied from an internet site.

        Continuing to use quotes from Jefferson and Madison and even Adams are completely irrelevant apart from understanding the man, and his belief system, his worldview, his ideology, and the context within which a statement is made.

        It is interesting that you choose Jefferson, both a slave holder and an immoral person. Jefferson agreed in principle, with Adams, that owning slaves was immoral; yet, his belief was not enough to rid him of his vice. If Jefferson was not a man of integrity on the slaves issue, what makes you think that one statement by him is Scriptural? You are without wisdom or understanding which comes from God alone. You cannot even have a framework for living apart from an acknowledgement that a Higher Being than yourself exists.

        It is Gordy's assertion that there is no God, that those who believe in God should be ridiculed and abused for their beliefs that is the sticking point in my defense of the truth.

        In fact, in the world of atheists, there is no absolute truth. Everything is relative. And, one person's assertion is just as good as another. So, Gordy is defying any logic by making the absolute statement that Christianity has not bearing on the founding fathers coming together, praying and fasting, and presenting us with the Constitution of the United States of America.

        You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. If you do not want to be chastised for insulting others for their beliefs, then stop insulting.

        When a person knows God, submits to God, there is no fear of anything in this world. When a person denies God, then he should fear everything, earthquakes, asteroids, plagues, famine, disease, global warming, because any of these can take him out suddenly.

        Know God, NO FEAR! Deny God, fear everything!

        • 1 vote
        Reply#6 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:05 PM EST
        gordy327

        What is the moral code of an atheist? Do all atheists have the same moral code? How is it possible that any two atheists can agree on what is right or wrong, much less any number of atheists agreeing?

        Are you saying atheists have no morals? Apparently, they do. Morality is independent of religion or a belief in God. People might derive their morality from their relgion, but religion alone is not a source.

        If every atheist is a law unto himself, then there is total anarchy in society. Every man doing what is right in his own eyes, produces chaos.

        All citizens, regardless of their belief systems or lack of them, are bound by the same laws and code of conduct in the society, with penalties for breaking them. You don't see atheists running in the streets just doing whatever they want, do you?

        YET, you think that you can take a two hundred and thirty year old statement and know exactly what it means without taking into consideration anything other than a sentence or two copied from an internet site.

        You fall into your own trap. You claim I cannot know the intention behind the founding fathers statements while implying that you do? I don't think you can speak for them. Some of their statements seem quite clear and to the point, hard to misinterpret. In fact, the only body qualified to interpret the intentions of the founding fathers, as it relates to the laws of our land, is the SCOTUS.

        It is Gordy's assertion that there is no God, that those who believe in God should be ridiculed and abused for their beliefs that is the sticking point in my defense of the truth.

        I NEVER said anyone who believes in God should be ridiculed. You can believe in whatever god you want in whatever fashion you want for all I care. That's your right! My sticking point is when people try to push their god or beliefs into the government arena or onto me where it doesn't belong. That crosses the line (which happened to be drawn by the constitution).

        Gordy is defying any logic by making the absolute statement that Christianity has not bearing on the founding fathers coming together, praying and fasting, and presenting us with the Constitution of the United States of America.

        It had bearing in how the founding fathers lived their private lives. It did not when they formed this nation and its system of laws and government. We see that clearly in the writings of the constitution.

        If you do not want to be chastised for insulting others for their beliefs, then stop insulting.

        I am not insulting! You may interpret my posts and disagreements with you as insulting. But, as you say, that is your opinion.

        When a person knows God, submits to God, there is no fear of anything in this world. When a person denies God, then he should fear everything, earthquakes, asteroids, plagues, famine, disease, global warming, because any of these can take him out suddenly.

        You are entitled to your opinon, but that is all it is.

        Know God, NO FEAR! Deny God, fear everything!

        Which begs the question: can you prove there is a God?

        • 8 votes
        #6.1 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:11 PM EST
        CF Studios-1512292

        ON A TANGENT:

        "Begging the question" is a very abused phrase. You meant to say "asks the question".

        "Begging the question" refers to circular logic, or a self-supporting argument. For instance: if you say, "God exists and created Man in his image. Only an intelligent Creator could have created intelligent beings and moral laws. Man is intelligent, and has moral laws. Therefore God exists", that would be begging the question. It's a tactic often employed by weak minds to "prove" the existence of a Creator.

        • 7 votes
        #6.2 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:12 PM EST
        gordy327

        Begging the question" is a very abused phrase. You meant to say "asks the question".

        My mistake. Thanks!

        • 6 votes
        #6.3 - Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:48 AM EST
        RAC 0129

        As to your Thomas Jefferson quotes: Forget it. You can take one statement from a person, out of context and use it to validate a point that you are trying to make, when, in fact, the statement was said with completely different intent. Those on these boards misunderstand statement made all the time. YET, you think that you can take a two hundred and thirty year old statement and know exactly what it means without taking into consideration anything other than a sentence or two copied from an internet site.

        Here let me show you the hypocrisy of your statements.

        "As to your Bible quotes: Forget it. You can take one statement from a person, out of context and use it to validate a point that you are trying to make, when, in fact, the statement was said with completely different intent. Those on these boards misunderstand statement made all the time. YET, you think that you can take a two thousand year old statement and know exactly what it means without taking into consideration anything other than a sentence or two copied from an internet site."

        It boils down to this. You have your beliefs - nothing more. There is no absolute proof other than what you believe is true. To try and use the Bible as factual proof of anything is pretty self assuring but that is about it.

        This seed wasn't about the proof of Christianity but as with all threads of this nature, it always breaks down to that. It was about whether or not this was a "Christian" nation. My belief - it is a nation with Christians in it founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. I think the quote from James Madison deserves another post:

        ""practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." (Bolding emphasis mine.)

        I find it rather ironic that people who scream and yell the loudest against how government screws up things unequivocally and without fail wish to have that same government involved in their religion. As a Christian, I don't want the government involved in any way shape or form with my religion either as a law making body nor as an entity that endorses or proclaims religious preferences.

        • 13 votes
        #6.4 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:35 PM EDT
        gordy327

        I find it rather ironic that people who scream and yell the loudest against how government screws up things unequivocally and without fail wish to have that same government involved in their religion.

        "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."---George Carlin

        Good post and point RAC!

        • 8 votes
        #6.5 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:32 PM EDT
        Proud Pagan

        What is the moral code of an atheist?

        Virtue Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Teleological Ethics, etc., or any combination thereof forming a Meta-Ethic.

        Do all atheists have the same moral code?

        No different than presuming that all Christians have the same moral code.

        How is it possible that any two atheists can agree on what is right or wrong, much less any number of atheists agreeing?

        Asked and answered; see above.

        If every atheist is a law unto himself, then there is total anarchy in society. Every man doing what is right in his own eyes, produces chaos.

        False assumption; you've ignored all non-religious systems of ethics to presume a lack of ethics.

        As to your Thomas Jefferson quotes: Forget it. You can take one statement from a person, out of context and use it to validate a point that you are trying to make, when, in fact, the statement was said with completely different intent.

        To claim an explanation is wrong, without offering an alternative explanation, is intellectually dishonest. You have your opinion, what do you have to back it up?

        Those on these boards misunderstand statement made all the time. YET, you think that you can take a two hundred and thirty year old statement and know exactly what it means without taking into consideration anything other than a sentence or two copied from an internet site.

        False presumption. Show me one article, letter, speech, ANYTHING, which shows John Adams, James Monroe, or Thomas Jefferson believed the U.S. was a Christian nation.

        Continuing to use quotes from Jefferson and Madison and even Adams are completely irrelevant apart from understanding the man, and his belief system, his worldview, his ideology, and the context within which a statement is made.

        Do tell; by what mystical means have you determined the depth and breadth of my education?

        It is interesting that you choose Jefferson, both a slave holder and an immoral person.

        Your opinions are worthless. First you speak of "understanding the man," and then make a thoroughly ignorant statement like "...both slaveholder and ... immoral...?" Hypocrite!

        Jefferson agreed in principle, with Adams, that owning slaves was immoral; yet, his belief was not enough to rid him of his vice.

        Vice?!? Thomas Jefferson chose to keep his slaves working, fed, clothed, and sheltered, rather than turning them out, en masse, to what?? What future did a slave have once freed? Without savings, without education, without property, and with little-to-no hope of obtaining gainful employment? While Jefferson disagreed with slavery, he was fully cognizant that society was not ready to accept a large influx of freed slaves.

        Are you so without a rudimentary education that you do not realize the consequences of such actions?

        In fact, in the world of atheists, there is no absolute truth. Everything is relative. And, one person's assertion is just as good as another.

        Already proved to be a false statement.

        Regards

        • 8 votes
        #6.6 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:44 PM EST
        WaltUU

        Show me one article, letter, speech, ANYTHING, which shows John Adams, James Monroe, or Thomas Jefferson believed the U.S. was a Christian nation.

        I have pointed out several times in the last month that John Adams was a Unitarian (as was John Hancock and other founders), explicitly denying a required belief of Christians: Adams (et. al.) knew Jesus to be just a man, not an aspect of deity. Unitarians reject the findings of the First Council of Nicea - agreeing to the findings of that council (the trinity, that Jesus was uniquely the son of God, etc.) is an essential aspect of what makes someone a Christian today.

        The most prominent founders of this nation were explicitly non-Christian as we understand Christianity today. And it was not only founders; to date six US Presidents were non-Christian. It is only over the last fifty years or so that the "Christian nation" delusion has been promulgated, cynically assuming that repeating a lie often enough will deceive the public into believe that lie.

        • 10 votes
        #6.7 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:49 AM EST
        gordy327

        . It is only over the last fifty years or so that the "Christian nation" delusion has been promulgated, cynically assuming that repeating a lie often enough will deceive the public into believe that lie.

        And it's a lie that's been been perpetuated by the likes of David Barton and company, along with others who have an agenda .

        • 7 votes
        #6.8 - Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:33 AM EST
        andilltellyaanotherthing

        PJK1020

        What is the moral code of an atheist?

        An atheist understands right from wrong like most properly adjusted 8 year olds. Look up empathy and maybe that will help you to understand.

        How is it possible that any two atheists can agree on what is right or wrong, much less any number of atheists agreeing?

        It's a sad commentary that you think everyone should agree on anything.

        If every atheist is a law unto himself, then there is total anarchy in society. Every man doing what is right in his own eyes, produces chaos.

        This is wrong on so many levels that I couldn't even begin to explain the errors in your theory to you without first explaining the elementary principles of what it is to be a human being, what it is to be an rational, responsible, caring individual member of the human race.

        It is Gordy's assertion that there is no God, that those who believe in God should be ridiculed and abused for their beliefs that is the sticking point in my defense of the truth.

        How does one have a 'sticking point in the defense of the truth' when said truth is based on mythology?

        In fact, in the world of atheists, there is no absolute truth.

        Is there someone out there arguing that the world is flat? Are they also arguing that electricity does not exist? There are not billions of absolute truths, rather the absolute truths are countless and range from the elementary examples I offered you to the more complicated which I will not mystify you with.

        Everything is relative.

        Finally something we can agree on.

        And, one person's assertion is just as good as another.

        Sadly, this kind of failure to grasp simple concepts is what may be holding society back from evolving out of the primitive fear that drives some of us primates to kneel before man-made gods.

        A 'concept' (or hypothesis) based on an educated guess, scientific experiment and objective analysis can produce an 'assertion' or theory that may hold merit and may even be accepted as fact with enough research based on replicated efforts to produce similar results in similar settings.

        A concept based on fear that is derived from archaic mythology is something best suited for a more primitive man that is incapable of understanding the scientific process. Bronze age comes to mind.

        There may also be genetic factors involved with people who are able to base their lives on mythology.

        So, Gordy is defying any logic by making the absolute statement that Christianity has not bearing on the founding fathers coming together, praying and fasting, and presenting us with the Constitution of the United States of America.

        Gordy did no such thing. The argument of theist or deist aside, the constitution clearly defines a separation of church and state. Believe if you have to, that is your right but do not impose your belief in gods on the state or its people.

        Is this not simple enough to understand? Do you want Muslims to have an influence on the US government based on their belief in Allah?

        You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. If you do not want to be chastised for insulting others for their beliefs, then stop insulting.

        Ditto although I have to tell you that if we were keeping score, I believe most unbiased observers would have to rule that you are hardly in Gordy's league when it comes to making arguments based on fact.

        Your argument that the founding fathers wanted christians to rule the USA with laws based on the bible is at best amusing.

        When a person knows God, submits to God, there is no fear of anything in this world.

        When you say this and substitute god for the word allah it means the same thing. You can substitute the English word god with 2,000 other god names and have the same result.

        Why is yours the right god?

        Do you know you are an atheist to billions of others because you do not accept their god?

        When a person denies God, then he should fear everything, earthquakes, asteroids, plagues, famine, disease, global warming, because any of these can take him out suddenly.

        I have no gods to worship and I would bet you real cash that you still fear these things and many other things more than I do.

        Why do I think that?

        You have centered your entire belief system on fictional tales because of fear, because of something you are terrified of. I am not afraid of anything enough to compromise my intellect enough to embrace a belief in archaic tales.

        Know God, NO FEAR! Deny God, fear everything!

        Actually, would this be more accurate?

        Know Fear and know gods, deny gods and examine everything!

        • 10 votes
        #6.9 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:35 AM EST
        Reply
        Just an Observation-826313

        What is the moral code of an atheist? Do all atheists have the same moral code? How is that possible?

        The simplest, most universal of all morals, do no harm.

        Covers theft, murder, rape, assault, adultery, vandalism, arson etc.

        We really do not need any other moral than that one for a society to function and thrive and there is no need for a belief in a deity to hold this moral to heart.

        All other supposed morals created by this religion or that which cannot be classified as a "do no harm" moral, are at best questionable and are quite often religion specific.

        I truly feel sorry for you if in fact you believe that the only reason you are a good, upstanding, decent, person is because of your belief in a god.

        • 11 votes
        Reply#7 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:21 PM EST
        Just an Observation-826313

        It is interesting that you choose Jefferson, both a slave holder and an immoral person. Jefferson agreed in principle, with Adams, that owning slaves was immoral; yet, his belief was not enough to rid him of his vice. If Jefferson was not a man of integrity on the slaves issue, what makes you think that one statement by him is Scriptural? You are without wisdom or understanding which comes from God alone. You cannot even have a framework for living apart from an acknowledgement that a Higher Being than yourself exists.

        I chose Jefferson because he is the poster child for those who believe that we are a Christian nation, the whole "endowed by our Creator" thing.

        After reading your post I am now confused, which is he, a shining example of a Christian and Christian values that is propped up to falsely claim we are a Christian nation or an immoral, hypocrite.

        When a person knows God, submits to God, there is no fear of anything in this world. When a person denies God, then he should fear everything, earthquakes, asteroids, plagues, famine, disease, global warming, because any of these can take him out suddenly.

        The belief in God does not protect you from these things any more than an umbrella would protect you from a hurricane. Just ask the unfortunate souls in Haiti. Bad things happen even to people that do believe in your Christian God no more no less than any other group with a different belief system.

        • 6 votes
        Reply#8 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:41 PM EST
        gordy327

        Just ask the unfortunate souls in Haiti.

        Yes, but that's because they "made a pact with the devil," according to Pat Robertson.

        • 10 votes
        #8.1 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:13 PM EST
        Just an Observation-826313

        Yah, and God has been so busy it took him over 200 years before he had time to exact his wrath on the Nation, which is predominantly Christian in this day and age, 80% Roman Catholic and 16% Protestant.

        • 6 votes
        #8.2 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:20 PM EST
        gordy327

        and God has been so busy it took him over 200 years before he had time to exact his wrath on the Nation

        Well, you know how it is; God is a busy man, with watching all over creation and such. I'm surprised He finds time to exact petty wrath on us mere mortals from time to time.

        • 7 votes
        #8.3 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:53 PM EST
        Reply
        CF Studios-1512292

        Read your history. Christian pilgrims fled a Christian nation and its opression to found a nation free from religious tyrrany. In Merry Old England, they used to burn people alive for praying the wrong way. This because the offenders refused to follow the edicts of the State Religion. This, I believe, would define a "Christian nation"...one whose government codifies acceptable religious practices and suppresses unacceptable ones. England used to be a Christian nation. Now they're free to worship any way they like, just like America.

        I've read a bit of history. I have yet to find an instance of a state-sanctioned religion being ultimately good for the general populace.

        I suppose someone will claim that those crazy Brits were not "real" Christians. Or that our Christian nation can claim ownership of "real" Christian values, as opposed to all those godless Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim nations who don't know the "real" God. Puleez.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#9 - Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:26 PM EST
        gordy327

        Christian pilgrims fled a Christian nation and its opression to found a nation free from religious tyrrany.

        Ironically, the pilgrims were just as intolerant of other religions too. They wanted to practice theirs, and only theirs.

        I have yet to find an instance of a state-sanctioned religion being ultimately good for the general populace.

        It's only good for those in power, as religion ultimately keeps the general populace weak and fearful.

        I suppose someone will claim that those crazy Brits were not "real" Christians.

        The "No true Scotsman" fallacy!

        as opposed to all those godless Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim nations who don't know the "real" God. Puleez.

        Yeah, we see just how great Muslim controlled regions are, like Iran or Afghanistan >sarcasm<.

        • 2 votes
        #9.1 - Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:42 AM EST
        retired military ex republican.

        And the Christians used to kill men women and children and rape and pillage in the name of Christianity. So the Christians were and are considered pure I think not. In the United states we rebel against the freedom of religion and freedom to congregate (meet) in a location of their choice. We denounce their clothing and religious customs and even different Christian sects pray and believe differently. Many religions use the same bible or parts of it at least and consider any practice but their own Sacralige while the Christian Roman Catholic Religion is changed by the Vatican and who gives the Pontif the words and meaning needed to modify his religion? Guess The Pope speaks to God.

        Well crap we have politicians who claim to do that. Some speak in tongues I believe Sarah Palins sect speaks in tongues.

        Shades of Harry Potter Imagine if in the future say 2000 years from now someone digs up the book series of Harry Potter its found all over the world and in many languages WaLa a new religion with many different books and lessons to be learned and followed.

        This would be no more far fetched than our Religions of today. Arising from the Dead well it happens in Harry Potter. Love Morals Magic like turning watter to wine, Guess we should make Dumbledorf the example for the ruler of the future. Why not it could happen.

        • 1 vote
        #9.2 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 11:55 AM EST
        ekeefner

        more misconception... Christians don't kill in the name of Christianity..that is a misconception....they love people even if being killed......I could slap a caddilac hood ornament on my truck..but that doesn't make it a cadillac..take Stephen for example..an example of a Christian that is....are the ones you label as "Christians" really "Christians" or just under the guise of Christianity in order to make Christianity look bad?.(which worked pretty good considering the who started that falsehood or lie in the first place).There's a way to know if somebody's a Christian or NOT...the Author of our faith put it like this..."By this all men will know that you are My disciples, If you have love for one another." and "another" referring to everyone...

          #9.3 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:34 AM EST
          Born Again Agnostic

          The problem is that the preachers and followers you say are NOT christians (see the No True Scotsman fallacy) THINK they are true christians and are following what the bible is telling them to do. And who are YOU to tell them what a true christian is? I am sure THEY think you are the apostate. I say they are ALL bunk and should go the way of the Dodo.

          • 4 votes
          #9.4 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:01 AM EST
          ekeefner

          don't go by what I say...what does God say on the matter?....There's this book I read that claims to be the Word of God...I've been reading it for a long time now and it has always been true...throughout any and every circumstance in my life whenever I trusted it, and applied it's teachings, precepts, and principles...it's uncanny how it reveals things to me that people say and do ...before they ever do it..,its weird...whenever it starts being wrong about anything (vs. being right about everything).. then I'll stop believing it...every answer I ever had about anything I found in there...just have to be willing to do what it says in order to understand what it says...and to learn more from it...you also must be born again to understand it for the natural man doesn't understand the spiritual things..that's where you get a lot of confusion from..natural men trying to understand spiritual matters...not happenening....

            #9.5 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:26 AM EST
            RAC 0129

            Christians don't kill in the name of Christianity..that is a misconception

            Tell that to Dr. Tiller. Oh wait - you can't because he was killed by a Christian in a church.

            • 9 votes
            #9.6 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:31 PM EST
            Born Again Agnostic

            Why dont you ask the bible if a rabbit chews a cud or if it is OK to stone your son for disobeying you.

            • 6 votes
            #9.7 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:37 PM EST
            Reply
            Anathema6205

            I find it amusing these people are claiming that god is responsible solely for all law.

            The same god that has been predated by a slew of other gods.

            The same god that mirrors krishna, mithra, and horus.

            All of their laws that they claim were made by the christian god were predated by ancient civilizations WAAAAY before, by OTHER gods.

            And you know, if you think that this god is truly god, don't you think that the bible would mirror what science has been discovering?

            Like, oh I don't know, evolution?

            Don't you think that god would have explained the creation in such a way that would be a blunt way of putting evolution?

            It wouldn't be that hard, really.

            Instead, it tells of the whole human race, coming from just two people, genetically impossible.

            It also tells of the flood, in which Noah, a 900 year old man, (also impossible) can bring EVERY SINGLE species of life into one boat the size of five football fields.

            NOW when they say EVERY species, including modern dogs, (because theres no such thing as micro-evolution) the billions of species of insects, and the billions of micro-organisms, which they had NO way of knowing about...

            Not to mention, that, according to the bible, the world is only 6000 years old, when in fact, we've proven by numerous tests that the world is about 4.5 billion years old.

            If the bible was dictated by god, don't you think he would have included something as important as the dinosaurs somewhere in the creation story?

            • 6 votes
            Reply#10 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:42 PM EDT
            gordy327

            Let's face it, the bible has too many gaps and many of its claims can be and has been refuted or discredited by scientific analysis. Plus, none of its claims has been objectively verified or proven factual.

            • 5 votes
            #10.1 - Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:24 PM EDT
            ekeefner

            It takes way more faith for you to believe the theory of evolution...there are numerous theories, and they all contradict one another,...there are huge gaps in the fossil remins..there isn't enough evidence to back up evolution to make it a "fact"...no where close...plants and animals do evolve and adapt...but explain the platypus....how did it evolve?....your logic on the "origin of man" is proof to me of reverse evolution...

              #10.2 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:15 AM EST
              Born Again Agnostic

              Such a massive lack of understanding. Amazing!! Perhaps this article on the Platypus might help you. I found it interesting. The genome of the platypus indicates that IT is actually one of the transitional species you are looking for. SURPRISE!!!!!

              http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-platypus.html

              • 6 votes
              #10.3 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:04 AM EST
              ekeefner

              I ,as a Chistian believer, do believe in many theories of evolution and its processes which are evident everywhere, but I do not believe in Darwin's full theory...However I have entertained the possiblity that many people may have or could have evolved/ descended from the donkey....instead of apes...And vise versa..I have seen on many occasions where a person evolved into a donkey..and it didn't take millions of years either..it only took a few minutes.... also it takes a lot of "blind faith" to believe what scientists say they can "confirm 165 million years ago"...I am a true "skeptic"..there is good science..and then there's poor science..usually based in faulty suppositions and speculative data and conclusions from that data...and for one scientist trying to prove "theory"..with so-called evidence a lot of times..you will have 10 more scientists with valid arguments why it is not!...I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in many things claimed by scietists,...there are geological formations around that they say takes "millions" of years to form, and yet there was recently similar formations that formed in a matter of weeks, (sedimentary stratification or something like that) at their "surprise"..not believing it was possible..the genome genes they mention found in the platypus they say was alredy present..(milk producing)....i gotta stop....

                #10.4 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:03 PM EST
                gordy327

                It takes way more faith for you to believe the theory of evolution

                No it doesn't! Evolution is a valid and accepted theory and field of study, with lots of supporting empirical evidence. No faith is required.

                ...there are numerous theories, and they all contradict one another,...

                What theories? I'm only familiar with one scientific theory of evolution.

                ,...there are huge gaps in the fossil remins..there isn't enough evidence to back up evolution to make it a "fact"...no where close...

                All fossils themselves are evidence of evolution. There is also other data available which supports evolution as well. Given the volumes if collected information which supports evolution and none which discredits it, much less any valid theory proposed which is better than evolution, it is generally accepted by the scientific community to be "fact." By all means, provide one shred of evidence which disproves evolution and you'll blow the whole theory out of the water.

                but explain the platypus....how did it evolve?....

                It evolved just like every other organism. Although the platypus is considered by some to be an evolutionary dead end.

                ..I have seen on many occasions where a person evolved into a donkey..and it didn't take millions of years either..it only took a few minutes

                I'm not sure whether you're trying to be serious or just throwing out a sarcastic ad hom attack.

                also it takes a lot of "blind faith" to believe what scientists say they can "confirm 165 million years ago"

                No it doesn't. It just takes repeated testing, peer review, and authentic, verifiable, and falsifiable observation or collection. Again, no faith required.

                "...I am a true "skeptic"..

                Yet you seem to favor religious dogma over true science.

                )....i gotta stop

                Yes please. Because your whole argument is just turning into bad comedy now.

                • 7 votes
                #10.5 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:00 PM EST
                ekeefner

                Darwin concluded:

                Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, —ants making slaves, —the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, —not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.[109]...(and these characteristics very well could be specially endowed or created instincts..he doesn't know for sure..)....from Darwins notes/ I believe in the fact that plants and animals definately do evolve or adapt through genetic changes over time due to environmental conditions...but I think somewhere his theories and work got twisted by man (probably the church during that time)..to infer things that Darwin never inferred himself...but he himself used the term "endowed" and "created"..and even admitted in his own notes that "some" of his deductions may not be logical...doesn't mean they are..just sayin...a lot of times when people have discussions, neither one is talking about the same thing, as far as what it means..what you mean...and what I hear..may be two different things..you know, a failure to "communicate"...

                  #10.6 - Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:12 AM EST
                  Reply
                  Polka14

                  America is not a Christian nation. Christians may be the majority but America is a nation of all faiths and non-faiths. I do not care about the Christian faith and what it stands for. They need to leave my non-faith alone and to cease their involvement in our government.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#11 - Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:32 PM EDT
                  gordy327

                  Well said Polka. And thanks for commenting. :)

                  (I guess this means you now covered all 6000 articles pertaining to the US being a 'christian nation?') LOL

                  • 2 votes
                  #11.1 - Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:19 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  DeeDee04

                  There is a big difference between a nation with a lot of Christians and a Christian nation.

                  America is a melting pot of different culture, race, and religion. There maybe millions of Christians in America, but it doesn't make America a Christian nation.

                  It's as simple as that.

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#12 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:40 AM EST
                  gordy327

                  There maybe millions of Christians in America, but it doesn't make America a Christian nation.

                  Quite right DeeDee. Unfortunately, some people think that the popularity of the religion automatically determines the religion of the country by default, such as the claim that Americal has mostly christians so we are automatically a christian nation. That type of argument is akin to an argumentum ad populum.

                  It's as simple as that.

                  'Nuff said! :)

                  • 2 votes
                  #12.1 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:11 PM EST
                  CL1

                  gordy, actually, that isn't how I interpreted the statement, "America is a Christian Nation." ..Atleast, it appears there could be a little room for individual interpretation.

                  I took it to mean 'influence' of Christianity on our legal system ('certain' interpretations of morality), and in other areas, e.g., currency, plaques using the word God, and a plaque of the Ten Commandments in the SCOTUS.

                  I didn't take the phrase to mean a literal interpretation of 'human bodies.' ---guess I just have a warped sense of interpretation. lol.

                  • 2 votes
                  #12.2 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:20 PM EST
                  gordy327

                  I took it to mean 'influence' of Christianity on our legal system ('certain' interpretations of morality), and in other areas, e.g., currency, plaques using the word God, and a plaque of the Ten Commandments in the SCOTUS.

                  Such influences is quite unconstitutional. The only influence that should be in our legal system should be the words of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution! At least, in a more perfect universe it is. :)

                  guess I just have a warped sense of interpretation. lol.

                  That's not necessarily a bad thing. :P

                  • 5 votes
                  #12.3 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:00 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Whoisme

                  America is a secular nation with a religious society (Not Christian, but religious).

                  It's easy to see how so many people can become confused as to whether or not America is anything other than (an attempt at) a secular government with laws and restrictions upon itself to allow religious freedom in it's society. With so many religious people running the government, an average person might labelthe government religious because the politicians are religious. Most don't understand that the politicians personal opinions and lifestyles do not effect the state of government due to the laws and regulations mentioned earlier. It is only when a politician challenges these mores that we hear of most politician's personal opinions- the point being that the average person is only being given information to support the idea of a religious government. You don't hear the newscaster announce that "[politician] has kept his personal life and politics separate today," You hear about the ones who didn't.

                  Let me know how repetitive that was...

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#13 - Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:02 PM EST
                  gordy327

                  America is a secular nation with a religious society (Not Christian, but religious).

                  Agreed!

                  Let me know how repetitive that was

                  Not repetitive enough, as many people still assume this is a "christian nation." Now, people who claim this is a christian nation is repetitive, and erroneous!

                  • 3 votes
                  #13.1 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:42 PM EST
                  Whoisme

                  Agreed!

                  • 3 votes
                  #13.2 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:08 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Vlad's dog

                  If our Nation is a Christian Nation, then we have done some awful things in the name of Christianity.

                  I am tired of others pressing their beliefs on my Nation and my private spirtiual life. I am only one person but I am a part of the chorus that says, leave my Nation and my spirit free from theocracy!

                  bunch of dogmatic crazies!

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#14 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:33 AM EST
                  gordy327

                  Well said Vlad!

                  • 2 votes
                  #14.1 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:43 PM EST
                  Reply
                  retired military ex republican.

                  Vlad's dog I agree totally. We spend so much time trashing people and religions and beliefs we completely forget that we are totally out of control ourselves.

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#15 - Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:01 AM EST
                  ekeefner

                  thought I'd check out some of articles...I had to write an essey in English Comp. when in college and the subjest I was given was..:Is America a "Just" Nation?"...of course I wrote the article that from the premise that it is not! I wrote about the financing of the Revolution through the Triangle Trade Route...The conquest of the west and annihilation of the native american, not to mention only "one" kept treaty out of hundreds..the Indians never broke one..until the U.S. re-nigged on it's part..there was aton of stuff to write on...gonna read your article now..would have to guess the answer to "Is America a Christian Nation?".. is no...and I would have to pretty much agree for the most part...and say also,yes..maybe to a small degree..

                    Reply#16 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:01 AM EST
                    gordy327

                    I had to write an essey in English Comp. when in college and the subjest I was given was..:Is America a "Just" Nation?"...of course I wrote the article that from the premise that it is not!

                    Perhaps you could write a similar article for NV? That would be an interesting read.

                    • 3 votes
                    #16.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:38 AM EST
                    Reply
                    ekeefner

                    Very good and well written (and informative) article gordy...now the question...How many Christians make up the population? And would that be definitive of a "Christian" nation?...and if it's a majority (based on whoever takes the poll and their definition of Christian..does that include Jehova Witnesses..or Mormans..etc,..)..I would have to say that the majority of Americans are not Christians..a lot might go to church...might read their Bible even..but that's not what makes a person a "Christian"...good article...

                      Reply#17 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:17 AM EST
                      gordy327

                      Very good and well written (and informative) article gordy

                      Thank you. I'm glad you liked it.

                      How many Christians make up the population?

                      I don't know the exact percentage offhand, but I guess it's around 75-85% of the population which claims a christian or christian denomination.

                      And would that be definitive of a "Christian" nation?...

                      No!

                      and if it's a majority (based on whoever takes the poll and their definition of Christian..does that include Jehova Witnesses..or Mormans..etc,..)..

                      I assume that would also include any denominations based on or branching off from mainstream christianity.

                      I would have to say that the majority of Americans are not Christians..a lot might go to church...might read their Bible even..but that's not what makes a person a "Christian"...

                      I would have to agree with you on that.

                      • 1 vote
                      #17.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:16 AM EST
                      Reply
                      ekeefner

                      How about writing an article titled "Is America a Godless Nation?" also Gordy.....that would be an interesting article to read from you..

                        Reply#18 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:49 AM EST
                        gordy327

                        How about writing an article titled "Is America a Godless Nation?" also Gordy.....that would be an interesting article to read from you..

                        That might be interesting. But I don't think I could make the argument that America is a "godless" nation, as that is not the case. Officially speaking, America is a secular nation with a religiously neutral government. To claim it is godless would imply that it prefers non-religion over religion, which is also unconstitutional.

                        • 5 votes
                        #18.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:12 AM EST
                        Reply
                        ekeefner

                        So it IS a Godless nation?..I mean, if it's secular and religiously nuetral?...what else could it be?....If I met a person who said he was a Christian, and he was secular and religiously nuetral...I'd say he was without God,,...or Godless...makes sense to me........................(long pause, I'm thinking about it)...................but the truth of the matter is that America isn't...religiuosly nuetral, that is...in some respests, yes...but in many others, no. And it is secular in many, many respects, ...but in ways, it's also very spritual...hmmm...

                          Reply#19 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:28 AM EST
                          gordy327

                          So it IS a Godless nation?

                          No, I didn't say that.

                          I mean, if it's secular and religiously nuetral?...what else could it be?....1

                          It means the government, representative of the country as the governing body, as a matter of policy and law, cannot endorse any religion or non-religion over one another. Hence, it is secular. The individual however, as the right to practice whatever religion they wish or non-religion if applicable. The government is not allowed to endorse or prohibit that right.

                          ?....If I met a person who said he was a Christian, and he was secular and religiously nuetral...

                          Depends on the context of what you or he means by secular or christian. Does that apply to belief or practice?

                          And it is secular in many, many respects, ...but in ways, it's also very spritual...

                          It is secular where it counts most (or at least should be). But spirituality is not always the same as religious fealty either.

                          • 2 votes
                          #19.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:46 AM EST
                          Born Again Agnostic

                          Perhaps an agnostic Nation?

                          • 1 vote
                          #19.2 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:06 AM EST
                          ekeefner

                          I've got a term for it.....but can't say it....

                            #19.3 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:25 PM EST
                            gordy327

                            I've got a term for it.....but can't say it....

                            Go ahead. I won't delete it.

                            • 1 vote
                            #19.4 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:02 PM EST
                            ekeefner

                            LOL...what comes to mind first for you..?...what it is....

                              #19.5 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:39 PM EST
                              gordy327

                              LOL...what comes to mind first for you..?...what it is....

                              Hmmm? Well, would it be considered a violation of the CoH?

                              • 1 vote
                              #19.6 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:45 PM EST
                              Artie-3438207

                              One can believe in a god and not be religious. Just because someone is irreligious, it does not mean that they are godless.

                              • 6 votes
                              #19.7 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:13 PM EDT
                              Kavatica

                              Well said Artie!

                              • 1 vote
                              #19.8 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:50 PM EDT
                              Just My 2 Coppers

                              Jesus Christ, himself, did not believe in religion. According to the bible, He went to "church" exactly twice... Once to "school" the religious instructors.. and once to vandalize the bankers on the front steps. lol Those Christians who purport to "follow Christ" would do the same - if they truly followed Christ.

                              • 4 votes
                              #19.9 - Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:15 PM EST
                              Reply
                              ekeefner

                              I guess this is kind of like those contradictions in the Bible?...seems like the truths of the matter contradicts one another, and yet they are both true....hmmmm...

                                Reply#20 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:37 AM EST
                                gordy327

                                What do you mean?

                                • 1 vote
                                #20.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:48 AM EST
                                ekeefner

                                I'm saying it is a Godless nation...if it's secular and religiously nuetral....which it is in a lot of ways,..but then again it's also spiritual, to some degree..Our money has In God We Trust on it..an expression of faith in God...and it's not religiously nuetral in my understanding of what you meant by "religously nuetral" because it supports Israel...does that make sense?..Can you say it is nuetral if it supprts Israel..don't think it would fall in the "nuetral" category...but in many respects also, it is religiously nuetral, in that we have seperation of church and state, etc..Now do you see the contradiction?

                                  #20.2 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:08 AM EST
                                  gordy327

                                  I'm saying it is a Godless nation...if it's secular and religiously nuetral

                                  Secular does not equal godless.

                                  Our money has In God We Trust on it..an expression of faith in God

                                  Aside from "In God We Trust" being unconstitutional, it was not the original motto. The original motto was "E. Pluribus Unum." The current motto is one example of religious infringement into the government, thereby violating the separation of church and state.

                                  and it's not religiously nuetral in my understanding of what you meant by "religously nuetral" because it supports Israel

                                  I agree, it's not. That's why it's unconstitutional.

                                  in that we have seperation of church and state

                                  Yes we do and it's something we must be vigilant in guarding.

                                  Now do you see the contradiction?

                                  I didn't say separation or such religious neutrality is always perfect either. There are occasional incursions, such as the examples you mentioned. All the more reason to be familiar with the Constitution and maintain its integrity. But for all intents and purposes, America is a secular nation with a religiously neutral government, with a legal separation of church and state.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #20.3 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:27 AM EST
                                  Born Again Agnostic

                                  Our money has In God We Trust on it..an expression of faith in God...

                                  Not constitutional and NOT on the original legal tender. Add by anti communists in the 50s

                                  because it supports Israel...

                                  Every nation is religious to some extent...most to a great extent. Are you saying we should not support any country because they are religious?

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #20.4 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:45 AM EST
                                  Reply
                                  ekeefner

                                  75-80% is WAY TOO HIGH...it is maybe, more like 10-15%...maybe 20%...I think 25% would really be pushing it....(and this is just my opinion, based on my definition of who is "perishing" according to my source, which you are fully aware of I'm sure.."the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing"...there are many so-called "branches" that teach salvation through good works instead of the way of the cross...just like all the other false religions in the world do...and that teaching is not of God, and its where the the fear and hypocrisy comes from in religion..which the world sees, and hates...just like I do...and just like God does..whether it's Christian or Buddism....it makes no difference...I believe God hates religion...because it's man made..and false...God doesn't want us to be religious...He wants us to be ourselves..He made us that way...and to do what's right...and to be loving towards one another, instead of hateful...it's really pretty simple...man likes to complicate things, and has a bad habit of messing things up...

                                    Reply#21 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:58 AM EST
                                    gordy327

                                    75-80% is WAY TOO HIGH

                                    Perhaps. That was an educated guess after all. I'll have to look up an official census as to the religious breakdown of the nation.

                                    it is maybe, more like 10-15%...maybe 20%...I think 25% would really be pushing it....

                                    I think that might be too low. Are you including all christian denominations or specific ones?

                                    there are many so-called "branches" that teach salvation through good works instead of the way of the cross..

                                    Then there are those which say works aren't good enough.

                                    God doesn't want us to be religious...He wants us to be ourselves..He made us that way...and to do what's right

                                    While I don't believe in god, I think doing the right thing and being a good person, regardless of any particular belief system, counts for something and is generally a good thing.

                                    man likes to complicate things, and has a bad habit of messing things up...

                                    I can't really argue with that.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #21.1 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:33 AM EST
                                    ekeefner

                                    Then there are those which say works aren't good enough. If it is "by works" then grace is no longer grace.."For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law"..."For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace.." or grace is no longer grace and Christ died needlessly...and its by grace through faith so no one can boast..."For by grace are you saved, through faith and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"..we are justified as a gift by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus...let me get off on one tangent here..remember what Jesus said about not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of God...and if you look at what they said in order to justify themselves, you'll see that they trusted in what they did.."Lord, Lord, didn't we perform many miracles and cast demons in your name?" and Jesus will say to them, :Depart from Me, for I neber knew you.."..one more point..in reference to other peoples of other nations, etc..being "saved"..Jesus said "whoever does right, will be welcomed by My Father, who is in heaven."....to me that means that for the ones that have never heard about Jesus and choose to do what's right (justice, equity, compassion, etc...) He already knows them...

                                      #21.2 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:28 PM EST
                                      OomYaaqub

                                      there are many so-called "branches" that teach salvation through good works instead of the way of the cross...just like all the other false religions in the world do...

                                      Sure, because of course our Creator couldn't care less about what we actually do, or how we treat each other and the rest of his creation. He only cares whether we believe a certain incomprehensible theory about the meaning of the death of an innocent person 2,000 years ago. That innocent person's death magically makes the consequences of our actions irrelevant--but only if we believe the right set of things about it. And of course Christians themselves can't agree on the details, but for centuries they've been going to war over them and of course the Creator approves of this. Nothing could possibly make more sense. /sarc

                                      • 4 votes
                                      #21.3 - Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:07 PM EST
                                      Reply
                                      ekeefner

                                      have you ever wondered why all the graves in all the graveyards face east?....and which direction Jesus said The Son of Man when He returns will come from?....just a coincidence probably....

                                        Reply#22 - Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:40 PM EST
                                        DeeDee04

                                        Nope, I don't wonder. It is actually a Christian tradition to face the graves towards east. Again, it is a religious thing.

                                        Ever wondered why cremation has become really popular now?

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #22.1 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:12 AM EST
                                        RAC 0129

                                        have you ever wondered why all the graves in all the graveyards face east?....

                                        They're not. Many are but not "all the graves in all of the graveyeards." False statement.

                                        Christians have historically been buried in a manner that can be interpreted as facing east but even then practices have changed. Millions of non-christians are buried every which direction.

                                        just a coincidence probably

                                        Just a coincidence??? What a crock of bull@!$%#..

                                        • 1 vote
                                        #22.2 - Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:07 PM EST
                                        Reply
                                        Dr Know

                                        Any "insert religion here" country has that religion as its OFFICIAL STATE religion.

                                        The United States was created by mostly Theists. They purposely refused to impose a state religion (such as the Church of England).

                                        The fact that there is a majority of people CLAIMING a certain religion, it does not reflect the actual NUMBER actively PRACTICING such religions. It certainly does not reflect on the number who strictly follow all the rules and precepts of those religions.

                                        If being "Christian" was a crime, how many could be convicted on the evidence alone?

                                        • 1 vote
                                        Reply#23 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
                                        Artie-3438207

                                        Regarding the 1st Amendment, Establishment Clause, there is the controversy over whether it was worded to apply only to Congress or to include the states as well, which had pseudo-theocracies of their own at the time.

                                        There is the interpretation that the Clause was included to require those states to remove their state-sponsored religion.

                                        There is also the interpretation that some states required the clause as a protection against Federally sponsored religion; otherwise, they would not ratify the Constitution.

                                        It's a moot point now, however, because of subsequent amendments, laws, and rulings.

                                        Regardless, thank the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, for protecting your religious freedom while at the same time giving us our secular nation. Those who established the state-sponsored religions of the colonies did not share this enlightened view.

                                        .

                                        • 3 votes
                                        Reply#24 - Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:43 PM EDT
                                        stally

                                        Good article Gordy, but I would add one thing. One other reason America is not a Christian nation is that we are not a nation of Christians. Ultimaltey the Bible states that Christians will be known by the example they set, not by the words they use. The so called Christians of today use likes and deception to make thier point. They treat others who are not of their faith as second class citizens. Jesus understood how religion was corrupted by politics. To be a Christian one must follow Christ. It's not enough to believe in the Bible. Satan believes in Christ and Satan believes in the Bible. The only thing that seperates Satan from Christians is that he doesn't follow Christ.

                                        So by action many Bible Believers who call themselves Christians have actually choosen the Satanic path instead of the Christian path. It's important to note that the master of deception would call himself a Christian as well.

                                        • 4 votes
                                        Reply#25 - Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:49 AM EDT
                                        gordy327

                                        Thank you stally and good point.

                                        • 3 votes
                                        #25.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:26 PM EDT
                                        bonos_rama

                                        Stally, you pretty much said what I was going to say - that there are very few Christians in this nation to begin with. Ironically, the very people that would claim the country is a Christian nation are usually not Christian in nature.

                                        • 5 votes
                                        #25.2 - Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:41 AM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
                                        Leave a Comment:
                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                        FUN STUFF:
                                        • Leaderboard |
                                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                                        • Top of the Vine |
                                        • Newsvine Live |
                                        • Newsvine Archives |
                                        • The Greenhouse |
                                        COMPANY STUFF:
                                        • Code of Honor |
                                        • Company Info |
                                        • Contact Us |
                                        • Jobs |
                                        • User Agreement |
                                        • Privacy Policy |
                                        • About our ads
                                        LEGAL STUFF:
                                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com